ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2024
Treatment Outcomes of PED for Unruptured Aneurysms of Internal Carotid Artery: Comparison of PED-Flex and PED-Shield.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2024. 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.
- Pipeline shield reduces diffusion-weighted imaging-detected ischemia after intracranial aneurysm treatment compared with pipeline flex: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of very short flow diverters for the treatment of intracranial internal carotid artery aneurysms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a lack of data regarding the safety and effectiveness of implanting the Pipeline Embolization Device with Shield technology (PED-Shield) compared with the previous generation of Pipeline (PED-Flex). This retrospective single-center study aimed to compare treatment outcomes between the PED-Shield and PED-Flex for treating unruptured internal carotid artery aneurysms. The PED-Flex was used in 62 procedures (67 aneurysms, 59 patients) and the PED-Shield in 53 procedures (59 aneurysms, 58 patients). The mean aneurysm diameter was significantly lower in the PED-Shield group than in the PED-Flex group (11.9 ± 7.0 mm vs. 15.2 ± 6.9 mm, p < 0.001). At the 12-month follow-up, the complete angiographic occlusion rate was 72.1% and 72.3% in the PED-Flex and PED-Shield groups, respectively (p = 0.9808). Limited to aneurysms larger than 10 mm, 70.6% and 68.0%, respectively (p = 0.8175). The incidence of more than three high signal intensity areas on diffusion-weighted imaging after treatment was significantly lower in the PED-Shield group than in the PED-Flex group (27.7% vs. 67.7%; p < 0.001). Limited to aneurysms larger than 10 mm, 41.1% and 69.6%, respectively (p < 0.0117). Symptomatic ischemic complications occurred within 30 days of four PED-Flex procedures (6.5%) and one PED-Shield procedure (2.0%) (p = 0.2315). Limited to aneurysms larger than 10 mm, 1.8% and 3.2%, respectively (p = 0.6677). The incidence of mRS score worsening at 6 months was 3.2% and 1.9% in the PED-Flex and PED-Shield groups, respectively (p = 0.6534). The PED-Shield can achieve outcomes equivalent to or better than the PED-Flex. Further large-scale studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
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.