SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Pipeline Embolization device for the treatment of unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcomes.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of surpass evolve flow diverters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2025Pooled it
- Five-Year Efficacy and Safety of the FRED Flow-Diverting Stent for Intracranial Aneurysms: Results From a Prospective Cohort.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Subgroup analysis of pipeline Flow-Diverter devices in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: A long-term real-world study involving 190 patients.Neurosurgical review · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe pipeline embolization device (PED) is commonly used for intracranial aneurysm treatment. While its effectiveness for certain types of aneurysms is well-established, its efficacy for saccular aneurysms remains controversial. We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of PED treatment for unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms.
methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies with at least one year of follow-up after PED treatment for saccular aneurysms were included. The primary endpoint was angiographic aneurysm occlusion at long-term follow-up (≥ 12 months), and the secondary outcome was long-term complications. We conducted a meta-regression analysis to explore potential sources of heterogeneity across studies.
resultsEleven studies of 797 patients with 963 aneurysms were included. Long-term angiographic occlusion rate was 85% (95% CI, 77-91%; p < 0.01), symptomatic ischemic stroke rate was 1% (95% CI, 0-3%; p < 0.01), rupture rate was 1% (95% CI, 0-2%; p = 0.02), and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) rate was 0.2% (95% CI, 0-1%; p = 0.11). Meta-regression analysis revealed a non-significant decreasing trend per year for aneurysmal occlusion, ischemic stroke rate, delayed aneurysmal rupture, and ICH.
conclusionPED demonstrates high long-term occlusion and low complication rates, suggesting it is a safe and effective treatment option for saccular aneurysms. Additionally, newer devices exhibit reduced thrombogenic profiles and safety with decreasing trends in ICH, ischemic stroke, and delayed aneurysmal rupture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39441223What 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.