Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36452166›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022

Clinical outcomes of pipeline embolization devices with shield technology for treating intracranial aneurysms.

Chao Luo, Lide Jin, Jigen Dong, Zaixiang Fu, Erheng Liu, Shi Yin, Lipeng Jian, Pengren Luo, Bo Liu, Wei Huang and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quantitative magnetic resonance angiography for early identification of in-stent stenosis post-flow diverter aneurysm embolization.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Chao LuoDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Lide JinDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Jigen DongDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Zaixiang FuDepartment of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Erheng LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Shi YinDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Lipeng JianDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Pengren LuoDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Bo LiuCollege of Clinical Medicine, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Wei HuangDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.
Shuai ZhouDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As a common endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms, the pipeline embolization device (PED) is considered a standard treatment option, especially for large, giant, wide-necked, or dissecting aneurysms. A layer of phosphorylcholine biocompatible polymer added to the surface of the PED can substantially improve this technology. This PED with shield technology (pipeline shield) is relatively novel; its early technical success and safety have been reported. We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of evaluating the efficacy and safety of the pipeline shield. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, following the preferred reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: We selected five prospective and two retrospective studies for review. A total of 572 aneurysms were included; of these, 506 (88.5%) were unruptured. The antiplatelet regimens were heterogeneous. The rate of perioperative and postoperative complications was 11.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5-18.9%]. The adequate occlusion rate at 6 months was 73.9% (95% CI: 69.1-78.7%). The adequate occlusion rate of more than 12 months was 80.9% (95% CI: 75.1-86.1%). The mortality rate was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.5%). Subgroup analyses showed that aneurysm rupture status had no effect on aneurysm occlusion rate, patient morbidity, or mortality. Conclusion: This review demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the pipeline shield for treating intracranial aneurysms. However, direct comparisons of the pipeline shield with other flow diverters are needed to better understand the relative safety and effectiveness of different devices.

Indexed as

endovascular therapyflow divertersintracranial aneurysmpipeline embolization device with shield technologypipeline shield

Identifiers

PMID36452166
PMCPMC9702813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.