ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Efficacy and Safety in the Use of Pipeline Vantage Shield Stent versus Pipeline Flex Shield Stent in the Treatment of Patients with Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Multicenter Study.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. 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 versus Pipeline Flex for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a propensity-matched multicenter study.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of the pipeline vantage flow diverter in small cerebral vessels ≤2.5 mm: a case series.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeUnruptured intracranial aneurysms (IA) are pathologic bulging of the arterial walls that could rupture and cause SAH. Recently, stents with modified surfaces have been used as treatment for IA. Thus, comparing efficacy and security of the Pipeline Flex Embolization Device with Shield Technology (PED-Shield) and the Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device with Shield Technology (PEDV) contributes to the scientific literature. Aiming to determine the efficacy of these stents, we believe the PEDV is as effective and safe as the PED-Shield in management of patients with unruptured aneurysms. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed data through an anonymized, multicentered cohort from multiple interventional radiology services in Colombia from January 2017 until June 2023.
resultsOur study included 574 unruptured IA in 546 patients. At 12 months, overall adequate O'Kelly-Marotta grading scale (OKM = C-D) angiographic results were 83%. For the PEDV stent it was 97% and for the PED-Shield stent it was 80% (
conclusionsThe PEDV stent improved efficacy in comparison with PED-Shield stent at 12 months while the PED-Shield stent showed a slightly better safety profile.
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.