ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Comparison of pEGASUS-HPC stent pusher-assisted catheterization (PAC) in ruptured and unruptured wide-necked cerebral aneurysms: a multicenter study.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the feasibility, efficiency, and safety of the pEGASUS-HPC stent pusher-assisted catheterization (PAC) technique between ruptured and unruptured wide-neck intracranial aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling.
methodsMulticenter retrospective study (June 2021-June 2025) evaluating the pEGASUS-HPC PAC technique in ruptured and unruptured wide-neck intracranial aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling. A microwire-assisted catheterization (MAC) cohort was included as a reference cohort. Primary endpoints were catheterization success and catheterization time; safety endpoints included perforation, dissection, and vasospasm.
resultsA total of 151 patients with 186 aneurysms were analyzed, including a PAC cohort of 91 patients with 111 aneurysms (27 ruptured, 84 unruptured) and a MAC reference cohort of 60 patients with 75 unruptured aneurysms. Catheterization success was achieved in 26/27 ruptured aneurysms (96.3%) and 79/84 unruptured aneurysms (94.0%) (p = 0.637). Mean catheterization time was 44 ± 14 s in ruptured aneurysms and 43 ± 21 s in unruptured aneurysms (p = 0.78). No catheterization-related perforations or dissections occurred in either PAC group, and no major procedural complications were recorded. Compared with the MAC reference cohort (289 ± 78 s), PAC was associated with significantly shorter catheterization times in both ruptured and unruptured aneurysms (both p < 0.001) while maintaining high technical success rates.
conclusionThe PAC technique demonstrated high catheterization success rates, short catheterization times, and a favorable safety profile in both ruptured and unruptured wide-neck intracranial aneurysms. Aneurysm rupture status did not significantly influence procedural performance or safety. Larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings and further define patient- and anatomy-specific indications for the technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42501082What 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.