Dong Linggen, Wang Chao, Wei Dachao, Peng Qichen, Wu Xinzhi, Chen Xiheng, Li Mingtao, Li Tong, Liu He, Zhao Yang, Duan Ran, Jin Weitao, Zhang Yukun, Wang Yang, Lv Ming
Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2025 Mar 17;17(4):368-374. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2024-021535.
Studies reporting spontaneous delayed migration or shortening (SDMS) after treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of SDMS after PED treatment, propose management strategies, and identify the risk factors contributing to its occurrence.
We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with an intracranial aneurysm (IA) treated with PEDs at three institutions. SDMS was classified as type I or II based on whether the PED covered the aneurysm neck.
The total cohort comprised 790 patients. SDMS was identified in 24 (3.04%) patients. Eighteen of the 24 patients had type I SDMS and did not require retreatment, while the remaining six patients had type II SDMS and all received retreatment. Multivariate logistic regression showed that the difference between the proximal and distal parent artery diameters (DPAD) (adjusted OR 2.977; 95% CI 1.054 to 8.405; P=0.039) and device tortuosity index (DTI) (adjusted OR 8.059; 95% CI 2.867 to 23.428; P<0.001) were independent predictors of SDMS after PED treatment, while the difference in length (DL) (adjusted OR 0.841; 95% CI 0.738 to 0.958; P=0.009) and PED plus coiling (adjusted OR 0.288; 95% CI 0.106 to 0.785; P=0.015) were protective factors.
The incidence of SDMS after PED treatment of IA was 3.04%. For patients with type I SDMS with incomplete aneurysm occlusion we recommend continuous imaging follow-up while, for patients with type II SDMS, we recommend aggressive retreatment. The DPAD and DTI were independent risk predictors of SDMS after PED treatment, while the DL and PED plus coiling were protective factors.
关于使用Pipeline栓塞装置(PED)治疗后出现自发性延迟移位或缩短(SDMS)的研究有限。本研究旨在评估PED治疗后SDMS的发生率,提出管理策略,并确定其发生的危险因素。
我们回顾性分析了三家机构连续接受PED治疗的颅内动脉瘤(IA)患者。根据PED是否覆盖动脉瘤颈部,将SDMS分为I型或II型。
总队列包括790例患者。24例(3.04%)患者出现SDMS。24例患者中有18例为I型SDMS,无需再次治疗,其余6例为II型SDMS,均接受了再次治疗。多因素logistic回归显示,近端和远端载瘤动脉直径差(DPAD)(调整后OR 2.977;95%CI 1.054至8.405;P=0.039)和装置迂曲指数(DTI)(调整后OR 8.059;95%CI 2.867至23.428;P<0.001)是PED治疗后SDMS的独立预测因素,而长度差(DL)(调整后OR 0.841;95%CI 0.738至0.958;P=0.009)和PED联合弹簧圈栓塞(调整后OR 0.288;95%CI 0.106至0.785;P=0.015)是保护因素。
IA患者接受PED治疗后SDMS的发生率为3.04%。对于动脉瘤闭塞不完全的I型SDMS患者,我们建议持续进行影像学随访,而对于II型SDMS患者,我们建议积极进行再次治疗。DPAD和DTI是PED治疗后SDMS的独立风险预测因素,而DL和PED联合弹簧圈栓塞是保护因素。