ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2022
Impact of Endoluminal Flow Diverter Number on Aneurysm Treatment Outcomes: A Multicenter Study.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- First clinical experience with the surpass elite flow diverter in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Intraoperative hemispheric circulation time as a potential predictor of aneurysm occlusion after flow diverter treatment in large internal carotid artery aneurysm.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Aneurysm Occlusion after Flow Diverter Treatment.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2026Review
- Overlapping Flow Diverter with Coiling for Fetal-type Posterior Communicating Artery Aneurysms with Triple Antithrombotic Therapy: A Case Series.NMC case report journal · 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact multiple overlapping flow-diverting stents have on aneurysm occlusion rates and iatrogenic complications relative to single flow-diverting stents. Methods: A retrospective review of a multicenter aneurysm database from 2012 to 2020 was performed to identify saccular aneurysms treated initially with single and multiple flow-diverting stents with ≥12-month angiographic and clinical follow-up. Aneurysm occlusion rates as a function of stent number served as a primary outcome measure with iatrogenic complications serving as a secondary outcome measure. Results: A total of 250 patients were initially treated with a single Pipeline embolization device (PED), and 48 patients were initially treated with multiple PEDs. There was no significant difference in aneurysm size, morphology, or dual-antiplatelet therapy regimen used between groups. There was no significant difference in the aneurysm occlusion (single, 83.6%, versus multiple, 83.4%; Conclusions: There is no significant difference in overall aneurysm occlusion rates between aneurysms treated initially with single versus multiple overlapping PEDs nor are there significant differences in procedure-related complications. Single PED flow diversion may be preferred whenever possible, with multiple PED constructs reserved for extenuating clinical circumstances as may be encountered with giant 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.