Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40495491›Full record

ArticleScience progress

Efficacy and performance of the new pipeline vantage flow diverter stent with shield technology: Short-term results of a single-center experience.

Emre Can Çelebioğlu, Emmanouil Blevrakis, Mehmet Yilmaz, İhsan Doğan, Fatmanur Duruk Erkent, Şeyda Kortun, Emre Utkan Büyükceran, Eyüp Bayatlı, Murat Zaimoğlu, Hakan Tuna and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Emre Can ÇelebioğluDepartment of Radiology/Vascular Interventional Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-1580-7064
Emmanouil BlevrakisDepartment of Radiology, NHS United Lincolnshire Hospitals Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, UK.
Mehmet YilmazDepartment of Anatomy, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
İhsan DoğanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Fatmanur Duruk ErkentDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Şeyda KortunDepartment of Radiology/Vascular Interventional Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Emre Utkan BüyükceranDepartment of Radiology, Ankara Guven Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-6912-7737
Eyüp BayatlıDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Murat ZaimoğluDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Hakan TunaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Mustafa Ağahan ÜnlüDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Sadık BilgiçDepartment of Radiology/Vascular Interventional Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to investigate and delineate the reliability and efficacy of the new Pipeline Vantage (PV). The flow diverter device was recently introduced presenting the innovative shield technology.MethodsThis retrospective study included 21 patients with 22 unruptured intracranial aneurysms, all of whom were treated with the PV device at our institution between January 2022 and January 2023. Patient demographics, aneurysm morphology and location, periprocedural strategies, treatment approaches, and occlusion status at follow-up (up to one year) were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsNineteen of the aneurysms (86.36%) were treated solely with the PV device and three (13.63%) were treated in combination with coil embolization. Two patients (9.52%) were expired, one related to a subarachnoid hemorrhage occurred during treatment and the second one after a successful treatment on follow-up, due to the existence of concomitant disease, not related to the aneurysm itself. The mean time of follow-up on the treated aneurysms was 7.4 months. In 81.81% (18 aneurysms) of the cases presented, a complete aneurysm obliteration was achieved on the last follow-up imaging.ConclusionsIn this initial experience, the PV flow diverter demonstrated favorable short- and mid-term outcomes in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. While the overall complication profile was acceptable, the occurrence of a periprocedural mortality reflects the inherent procedural risks of neurointervention, even under meticulous technique. However, short-term results should be balanced with caution and supported by robust research to demonstrate the long-term safety and efficacy of the device.Advances in knowledgePV the successor of the novel Pipeline device showed promising short-term results.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticEndovascular ProceduresIntracranial AneurysmStentsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomeendovascular treatmentflow diversionintracranial aneurysmPipeline embolization devicevantage flow diverter

Identifiers

PMID40495491
PMCPMC12163274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.