ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2023
Flow Diverter Performance for the Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: An International Multicenter Comparative Study.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative hemispheric circulation time as a potential predictor of aneurysm occlusion after flow diverter treatment in large internal carotid artery aneurysm.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Single-stage hybrid management of severe carotid stenosis and unruptured intracranial aneurysms using direct transcarotid access: Illustrative case.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Flow Diversion for Intracranial Aneurysms in Patients with Hematologic Disorders.Neurointervention · 2025Article
- The evaluation of the flow re-direction endoluminal device (FRED) for the treatment of selected intracranial aneurysms: a Polish multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Flow Diversion for Small Branches and Distal Aneurysms of the Posterior Circulation: A Subanalysis of the Post-FD Registry.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current evidence comparing flow diverters (FDs) for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms is limited to single-arm head-to-head retrospective and prospective studies. Herein, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of four FDs for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Methods: We performed a retrospective, multicenter international cohort study of adult patients treated with FDs (Pipeline embolization device, Surpass Streamline, Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device, and Silk) for intracranial aneurysms between 2015 and 2021. Efficacy was determined by aneurysm occlusion at final follow-up. Safety was determined by ischemic/hemorrhagic events and mortality. Secondary safety was assessed by technical complications. A mixed-effect multivariable ordinal and logistic regression were performed to evaluate variables that predicted the outcomes of interest. Results: We included 235 patients with 274 aneurysms. Treatment was performed with either the Pipeline embolization device (92), Surpass Streamline (56), Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device (47), and Silk (40). Median age was 57 (47-65) years. Most patients were asymptomatic (76%), and 8% had previous rupture. Most aneurysms were saccular (85%) and anterior (94%). The Pipeline embolization device subgroup had the largest aneurysms (6 mm, Conclusions: Our findings comparing 4commonly used FDs in a heterogeneous population with mainly small-sized aneurysms confirmed a similar safety and efficacy profile between devices.
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.