Mahajan Anshu, Banga Vinit, Chatterjee Apratim, Goel Gaurav
Department of Neurosciences, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
Asian J Neurosurg. 2019 Nov 25;14(4):1240-1244. doi: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_191_19. eCollection 2019 Oct-Dec.
We report two cases of rescue strategies for nonopening of Pipeline flow-diverter device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysm. The first patient, a 65-year-old female, presented with complaints of headache for 3 months and was found to have giant supraclinoid internal carotid artery (ICA) (ophthalmic segment) aneurysm. We planned endovascular partial coiling and flow-diverter placement for the treatment of ICA aneurysm. During the progressive deployment of PED, there was nonopening of Pipeline embolization device (PED) at its proximal end. We tried multiple attempts to navigate Marksman microcatheter over the PED delivery microwire and Echelon microcatheter over the Traxcess microwire across the pinched site, but we were not able to achieve success. After that, we tried opposite transcranial approach across prominent anterior communicating artery with the Synchro and Transcend microguidewire which finally resulted in the opening of the device; however, there was acute extravasation of dye on check angiogram. Thus, our technical success turned into disaster. The second patient, a 55-year-old female, presented with complaint of seizures for 3 months due to mass effect of cavernous sinus aneurysm. Pipeline Flex flow-diverter placement was done across the aneurysm neck. During the progressive deployment of device, there was nonopening of the mid and proximal segment of Pipeline Flex which was successfully managed by intra-Navien deployment of device followed by simultaneous push of Marksman microcatheter and pull of Navien catheter. In our case series, two rescue strategies were applied to successfully open the proximal constricted portion of Pipeline Flex; however, technical success in one case resulted in unmanageable disasters. Thus, transcranial rescue strategy for opening the constricted Pipeline Flex device should be cautiously used in our endovascular practice.
我们报告了两例针对治疗颅内动脉瘤的Pipeline血流导向装置未打开的挽救策略。首例患者为一名65岁女性,因头痛3个月就诊,发现患有巨大的床突上段颈内动脉(ICA)(眼段)动脉瘤。我们计划采用血管内部分弹簧圈栓塞和血流导向装置置入术治疗ICA动脉瘤。在逐步释放PED期间,Pipeline栓塞装置(PED)近端未打开。我们多次尝试将Marksman微导管沿PED输送微导丝推送,以及将Echelon微导管沿Traxcess微导丝穿过狭窄部位,但均未成功。此后,我们尝试经对侧经颅途径,使用Synchro和Transcend微导丝穿过突出的前交通动脉,最终使装置打开;然而,造影检查时发现有造影剂急性外渗。因此,我们的技术成功变成了灾难。第二例患者为一名55岁女性,因海绵窦动脉瘤的占位效应出现癫痫发作3个月。通过动脉瘤颈部置入了Pipeline Flex血流导向装置。在逐步释放装置期间,Pipeline Flex的中段和近端未打开,通过在Navien内释放装置,随后同时推送Marksman微导管和拉动Navien导管成功解决。在我们的病例系列中,应用了两种挽救策略成功打开了Pipeline Flex的近端狭窄部分;然而,其中一例的技术成功导致了无法控制的灾难。因此,在我们的血管内治疗实践中,应谨慎使用经颅挽救策略来打开狭窄的Pipeline Flex装置。