ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of pipeline embolization device and tubridge flow diverter for posterior circulation aneurysms: A multicentre propensity score matched study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preliminary experience of Tubridge Plus flow diverter in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: The off-label use of flow diverters (FDs) has broadened to include treating aneurysms in posterior circulation (PC). A novel flow diverter, the Tubridge flow diverter (TFD), has been created in China specifically for treating PC aneurysms. However, studies comparing between pipeline embolization device (PED) and TFD are rare. Thus, our study aimed to explore the effectiveness of PED and TFD in the treatment of PC aneurysms using a propensity score matched cohort design. Methods: Retrospective data collection was conducted on patients who underwent treatment with either PED or TFD over the period from 2015 through 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to calibrate for patient age; history of ischemic stroke; aneurysm size; morphology; location and neck; number of FDs; parent vessel diameter; and the employment of assisted coiling and balloon techniques. Data on previously ruptured aneurysms was not included in the analysis. A comparison was conducted between the two devices to assess perioperative complications, aneurysm occlusion rates, and functional outcomes. Results: A total of 252 PC aneurysms were treated in 248 patients. Clinical and imaging follow-ups were lost in 26 and 47 patients, respectively. Major perioperative complications occurred in 7.5% of the cases, with favorable clinical outcomes in 91.0% and complete occlusion in 79.1%. Eighty-two (32.5%) aneurysms were treated with TFD, while 170 (67.5%) aneurysms were treated with PED. PSM was used to account for these significant variations, producing 82 matched pairs of unruptured aneurysms treated with PED or TFD. In terms of functional and angiographic outcomes, no significant differences were found between PED and TFD (functional outcome, Conclusion: The comparative study of PED and TFD in the treatment of PC aneurysms resulted in positive clinical results and sustained occlusion rates, with acceptable perioperative complications. However, higher quality studies are needed to enhance our understanding of the use of FDs for treating of PC aneurysms.
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.