Outcome Study of the Pipeline Embolization Device with Shield Technology in Unruptured Aneurysms (PEDSU)

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Nelson PK,
   2. Lylyk P,
   3. Szikora I, et al

   . The Pipeline Embolization Device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:34–40 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2421 pmid:21148256

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   Premarket approval. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?ID=P100018. Accessed June 12, 2019
3. 3.↵
   1. Kallmes DF,
   2. Hanel R,
   3. Lopes D, et al

   . International retrospective study of the Pipeline embolization device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:108–115 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4111 pmid:25355814

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Kallmes DF,
   2. Brinjikji W,
   3. Boccardi E, et al

   . Aneurysm study of Pipeline in an observational registry (ASPIRe). Interv Neurol 2016;5:89–99 doi:10.1159/000446503 pmid:27610126

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Kallmes DF,
   3. Saatci I, et al

   . Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2013;267:858–68 doi:10.1148/radiol.13120099 pmid:23418004

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Pereira VM,
   2. Kelly M,
   3. Vega P, et al

   . New Pipeline Flex device: initial experience and technical nuances. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:920–25 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011347 pmid:25280568

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Colby GP,
   2. Lin LM,
   3. Caplan JM, et al

   . Immediate procedural outcomes in 44 consecutive Pipeline Flex cases: the first North American single-center series. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:702–09 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011894 pmid:26136500

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Girdhar G,
   2. Li J,
   3. Kostousov L, et al

   . In-vitro thrombogenicity assessment of flow diversion and aneurysm bridging devices. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2015;40:437–43 doi:10.1007/s11239-015-1228-0 pmid:25975924

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Yang SH,
   2. Hampton T,
   3. Kandasamy N, et al

   . Outcome study of the Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms at a single UK institution. Br J Neurosurg 2017;31:661–67 doi:10.1080/02688697.2017.1354121 pmid:28748748

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Comin J,
    2. Kallmes DF.

    Platelet-function testing in patients undergoing neurovascular procedures: caught between a rock and a hard place. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:730–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3440 pmid:23257609

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Brinjikji W,
    2. Lanzino G,
    3. Cloft HJ, et al

    . Platelet testing is associated with worse clinical outcomes for patients treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2090–95 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4411 pmid:26251435

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Siller-Matula JM,
    2. Trenk D,
    3. Schrör K, et al

    . Response variability to P2Y 12 receptor inhibitors. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:1111–28 doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2013.06.011 pmid:24262612

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Brasiliense LBC,
    2. Stanley MA,
    3. Grewal SS, et al

    . Silent ischemic events after Pipeline embolization device: a prospective evaluation with MR diffusion-weighted imaging. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:1136–39 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012091 pmid:26747877

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.
    1. Shapiro M,
    2. Becske T,
    3. Riina HA, et al

    . Toward an endovascular internal carotid artery classification system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:230–36 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3666 pmid:23928138

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Duckworth EAM,
    2. Nickele C,
    3. Hoit D, et al

    . The first North American use of the Pipeline flex flow diverter. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:e8 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011548.rep pmid:25653230

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Martínez-Galdámez M,
    2. Lamin SM,
    3. Lagios KG, et al

    . Periprocedural outcomes and early safety with the use of the Pipeline Flex Embolization Device with Shield Technology for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: preliminary results from a prospective clinical study. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:772–76 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012896 pmid:28223428

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Lylyk P,
    2. Miranda C,
    3. Ceratto R, et al

    . Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery 2009;64:632–42 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000339109.98070.65 pmid:19349825

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Szikora I,
    2. Berentei Z,
    3. Kulcsar Z, et al

    . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms by functional reconstruction of the parent artery: the Budapest experience with the Pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1139–47 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2023 pmid:20150304

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Fischer S,
    2. Vajda Z,
    3. Perez MA, et al

    . Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) for neurovascular reconstruction: initial experience in the treatment of 101 intracranial aneurysms and dissections. Neuroradiology 2012;54:369–82 doi:10.1007/s00234-011-0948-x pmid:21881914

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Martínez-Galdámez M,
    2. Lamin SM,
    3. Lagios KG, et al

    . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the Pipeline flex embolization device with shield technology: angiographic and safety outcomes at 1-year follow-up. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:396–99 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014204 pmid:30262655

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Griessenauer CJ,
    2. Goren O,
    3. Dalal SS, et al

    . Pipeline Embolization Device with Shield Technology for intracranial aneurysms: an initial U.S. experience. World Neurosurg 2018;119:0–14 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.203 pmid:30075266

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Orlov K,
    2. Kislitsin D,
    3. Strelnikov N, et al

    . Experience using Pipeline Embolization Device with Shield Technology in a patient lacking a full postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy regimen. Interv Neuroradiol 2018;24:270–73 doi:10.1177/1591019917753824 pmid:29378449

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Matsuda Y,
    2. Chung J,
    3. Lopes DK.

    Analysis of neointima development in flow diverters using optical coherence tomography imaging. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:162–67 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012969 pmid:28592484

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Hagen MW,
    2. Girdhar G,
    3. Wainwright J, et al

    . Thrombogenicity of flow diverters in an ex vivo shunt model: effect of phosphorylcholine surface modification. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:1006–11 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012612 pmid:27799376

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Arrese I,
    2. Sarabia R,
    3. Pintado R, et al

    . Flow-diverter devices for intracranial aneurysms: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 2013;73:193–200 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000430297.17961.f1 pmid:23624409

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Brinjikji W,
    2. Murad MH,
    3. Lanzino G, et al

    . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:442–47 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.678151 pmid:23321438

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Byrne JV,
    2. Beltechi R,
    3. Yarnold JA, et al

    . Early experience in the treatment of intra-cranial aneurysms by endovascular flow diversion: a multicentre prospective study. PLoS One 2010;5:e12492–98 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012492

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Saatci I,
    2. Yavuz K,
    3. Ozer C, et al

    . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the Pipeline Flow-Diverter Embolization Device: a single-center experience with long-term follow-up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1436–46 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3246 pmid:22821921

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Sweid A,
    2. Atallah E,
    3. Herial N, et al

    . Pipeline-assisted coiling versus Pipeline in flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Clin Neurosci 2018;58:20–24 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2018.10.081 pmid:30454690

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Ahmed SU,
    2. Mocco J,
    3. Zhang X, et al

    . MRA versus DSA for the follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated using endovascular techniques: a meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:1009–14 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014936 pmid:31048457

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Gentric JC,
    3. Darsaut TE, et al

    . Flow diversion in the treatment of aneurysms: a randomized care trial and registry. J Neurosurg 2017;127:454–62 doi:10.3171/2016.4.JNS152662 pmid:27813466

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Wall A,
    2. Kugel H,
    3. Bachman R, et al

    . 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T MR angiography: in vitro comparison of intravascular stent artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:772–79 doi:10.1002/jmri.20445 pmid:16270296

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Truong TN,
    3. Yen C, et al

    . Quantitative evaluation of susceptibility and shielding effects of nitinol, platinum, cobalt-alloy, and stainless steel stents. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:972–76 doi:10.1002/mrm.10450 pmid:12704782

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    1. Blum MB,
    2. Puchner S,
    3. Funovics MA, et al

    . Quantification and detectability of in-stent stenosis with CT angiography and MR angiography in arterial stents in vitro. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:1238–42 doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2501

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Lettau M,
    2. Sauer A,
    3. Heiland S, et al

    . Carotid artery stents: in vitro comparison of different stent designs and sizes using CT angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 1.5T and 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1993–97 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1743 pmid:19749216

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Boddu SR,
    2. Tong FC,
    3. Dehkharghani S, et al

    . Contrast-enhanced time-resolved MRA for follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2112–18 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4008 pmid:24994828

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    1. Slater LA,
    2. Soufan C,
    3. Holt M, et al

    . Effect of flow diversion with Silk on aneurysm size: a single-center experience. Interv Neuroradiol 2015;21:12–18 doi:10.1177/1591019915576433 pmid:25934769

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Shapiro M.

    Neurovascular topics in the endovascular arena. SAM-vascular-audience response (AR) self-assessment module (SAM). In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Neuroradiology, Long Beach, California. April 22–27, 2017
39. 39.↵
    1. Attali J,
    2. Benaissa A,
    3. Soize S, et al

    . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverter: comparison of three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography (3D-TOF-MRA) and contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) sequences with digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:81–86 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011449 pmid:25352582

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medical technologies guidance [MTG10], 2012. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg10/chapter/4-NHS-considerations. Accessed May 14, 2017
41. 41.↵
    1. Kang DH,
    2. Hwang YH,
    3. Kim YS, et al

    . Cognitive outcome and clinically silent thromboembolic events after coiling of asymptomatic unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2013;72:638–45 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182846f74 pmid:23277379

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Iosif C,
    2. Camilleri Y,
    3. Saleme S, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging–detected ischemic lesions associated with flow-diverting stents in intracranial aneurysms: safety, potential mechanisms, clinical outcome, and concerns. J Neurosurg 2015;122:627–36 doi:10.3171/2014.10.JNS132566 pmid:25559933

    CrossRefPubMed