Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36168255›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2024

Treatment of giant intracranial aneurysms using the Pipeline flow-diverting stent: Long-term results from the International Retrospective Study of the Pipeline Embolization Device (IntrePED) study.

Ramesh Grandhi, Vijay M Ravindra, David F Kallmes, Demetrius Lopes, Ricardo A Hanel, Pedro Lylyk

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Angiographic and clinical outcomes from 396 aneurysms treated with the pipeline flex embolization device with shield technology.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Flow diverter surface modifications for aneurysm treatment: A review of the mechanisms and data behind existing technologies.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ramesh GrandhiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9000-6083
Vijay M RavindraDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4496-7622
David F KallmesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8495-0040
Demetrius LopesDepartment of Neurosurgery, Advocate Health, Park Ridge, Illinois, USA.
Ricardo A HanelLyerly Neurosurgery, Baptist Neurological Institute, Baptist Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7195-5806
Pedro LylykDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology and Neurosurgery, Instituto Medico ENERI - Clínica La Sagrada Familia, Buenos Aires, CABA, Argentina.
University of Utah · USAdvocate Health Care · USBaptist Medical Center Jacksonville · USInstituto Cardiovascular de Rosario · ARMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional endovascular treatments of giant intracranial aneurysms are associated with high rates of complications and retreatment. Our objective was to examine the safety and long-term efficacy of the Pipeline Embolization Device for treatment of these aneurysms.

methodsThis retrospective study using the IntrePED database included all patients with giant intracranial aneurysms treated with the Pipeline device between July 2008 and February 2013. Efficacy outcomes were stratified by using the Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification. Predefined safety outcomes included spontaneous rupture of the target aneurysm; ipsilateral intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parent artery stenosis; and sustained cranial neuropathy.

resultsSixty-six embolizations were performed to treat 63 giant intracranial aneurysms (including 2 ruptured): 49 (77.8%) in the anterior and 14 (22.2%) in the posterior circulation. The median follow-up was 22.4 (0.1-60.5) months. Class I angiographic occlusion was achieved in 72.0% (36/50). The neurological morbidity/mortality rate was 23.8% (15/63), with higher rates in the posterior circulation than in the anterior circulation (22.4% vs. 28.6%). Among seven deaths, five had neurological causes. The procedure-related neurological morbidity and mortality rates were 22.7% (15/66) and 7.6% (5/66), respectively. The spontaneous rupture rate was 4.5% (3/66). Two spontaneous ruptures (1 death), 4/4 postprocedural intracranial hemorrhages, and 6/9 ischemic events occurred within 30 days. In-stent stenosis and new-onset cranial neuropathy were not observed during the angiographic follow-up period.

conclusionsAlthough procedure-related neurological morbidity/mortality rates were not insignificant, this study confirms the feasibility and long-term efficacy of the Pipeline Embolization Device to treat giant intracranial aneurysms.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticIntracranial AneurysmStentsAdultAgedCerebral AngiographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomecomplicationefficacygiant intracranial aneurysmPipeline embolization devicesaccularsafety

Identifiers

PMID36168255
PMCPMC11095340
OpenAlexW4297489967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.