ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2021
Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How aneurysm shape affects occlusion success after flow diverter placement.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Appraisal of the Flow Diversion Effect Provided by Braided Intracranial Stents.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the treatment of small unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) with flow diverter and LVIS-assisted coiling to determine the effects of hemodynamic changes caused by different stent and coil packing in endovascular treatment.
methodsFifty-one UIAs in 51 patients treated with pipeline embolization device (PED) were included in this study and defined as the PED group. We matched controls 1:1 and enrolled 51 UIAs who were treated with LVIS stent, which were defined as the LVIS group. Computational fluid dynamics were performed to assess hemodynamic alterations between PED and LVIS. Clinical analysis was also performed between these two groups after the match.
resultsThere was no difference in procedural complications between the two groups (P = 0.558). At the first angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate was significantly higher in the LVIS group compared with that in the PED group (98.0% vs. 82.4%, P = 0.027). However, during the further angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate in the PED group achieved 100%, which was higher than that in the LVIS group (98.0%). Compared with the LVIS group after treatment, cases in the PED group showed a higher value of velocity in the aneurysm (0.03 ± 0.09 vs. 0.01 ± 0.01, P = 0.037) and WSS on the aneurysm (2.32 ± 5.40 vs. 0.33 ± 0.47, P = 0.011). Consequently, the reduction ratios of these two parameters also showed statistical differences. These parameters in the LVIS group showed much higher reduction ratios. However, the reduction ratio of the velocity on the neck plane was comparable between two groups.
conclusionsBoth LVIS and PED were safe and effective for the treatment of small UIAs. However, LVIS-assisted coiling produced greater hemodynamic alterations in the aneurysm sac compared with PED. The hemodynamics in the aneurysm neck may be a key factor for aneurysm outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.