Search

Background: Underlying intracranial stenosis is the most common cause of failed mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion. Adjunct emergent stenting is sometimes performed to improve or maintain reperfusion, despite limited data regarding its safety or efficacy., Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational international cohort study. Patients were enrolled between January 2022 and December 2023 at 25 thrombectomy-capable centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. Consecutive patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy were included if they were identified as having underlying intracranial stenosis, defined as 50% to 99% residual stenosis of the target vessel or intraprocedural reocclusion. The primary outcome was functional independence, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 at 90 days. After applying inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores, we compared outcomes among patients who underwent adjunct emergent intracranial stenting (stenting) versus those who received mechanical thrombectomy alone., Results: A total of 417 patients were included: 218 patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy alone (168 anterior circulation) and 199 with mechanical thrombectomy plus stenting (144 anterior circulation). Patients in the stenting group were less likely to be non-Hispanic White (51.8% versus 62.4%, P =0.03) and less likely to have diabetes (33.2% versus 43.1%, P =0.037) or hyperlipidemia (43.2% versus 56%, P =0.009). In addition, there was a lower rate of IV thrombolysis use in the stenting group (18.6% versus 27.5%, P =0.03). There was a higher rate of successful reperfusion (modified Treatment in Cerebral Infarction score ≥2B) in the stenting versus mechanical thrombectomy-alone group (90.9% versus 77.9%, P <0.001) and a higher rate of a 24-hour infarct volume of <30 mL (n=260, 67.9% versus 50.3%, P =0.005). The overall complication rate was higher in the stenting group (12.6% versus 5%, P =0.006), but there was not a significant difference in the rate of symptomatic hemorrhage (9% versus 5.5%, P =0.162). Functional independence at 90 days was significantly higher in the stenting group (42.2% versus 28.4%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.66-4.32])., Conclusions: In patients with underlying stenosis who achieved reperfusion with mechanical thrombectomy, adjunct emergent stenting was associated with better functional outcome without a significantly increased risk of symptomatic hemorrhage., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05403593., Competing Interests: Dr Al Kasab has received grant funding from Stryker Neurovascular. Dr Inoa reports compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; employment by Semmes Murphey Clinic; compensation from Cerenovus for consultant services; compensation from Imperative Care, Inc for consultant services; compensation from Medtronic for consultant services; grants from Medtronic; compensation from Siemens for consultant services; compensation from viz.ai for consultant services; compensation from Penumbra, Inc for consultant services; and compensation from Stryker for consultant services. Dr Starke reports grants from Medtronic USA, Inc; compensation from Penumbra, Inc for consultant services; grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center; and compensation from Arthur L. and Elaine V. Johnson Foundation for consultant services. Dr Bender reports compensation from Stryker Corporation for consultant services. Dr Maier reports compensation from Bristol Myers Squibb Company for other services and compensation from PFIZER PHARMA GMBH for other services. Dr Grossberg reports grants from Emory Neurosurgery Catalyst; grants from Georgia Research Alliance; compensation from Imperative Care, Inc for consultant services; grants from Uniformed Services University-Surgical Critical Care Initiative; grants from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; compensation from Cognition for consultant services; grants from Emory Medical Care Foundation; and compensation from NTI for consultant services. Dr Jabbour reports compensation from Medtronic USA, Inc for consultant services. Dr Psychogios reports travel support from Medtronic; travel support from Siemens Healthineers AG; grants from Phenox, Inc; grants from Rapid Medical Ltd; grants from Penumbra, Inc; grants from Siemens Healthineers AG; travel support from Stryker Neurovascular, Inc; grants from Stryker Neurovascular, Inc; compensation from Siemens Healthineers AG for consultant services; grants from Medtronic; grants from Bangerter-Rhyner Stiftung; grants from Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF); travel support from Penumbra, Inc; and travel support from Phenox, Inc. Dr Samaniego reports compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; compensation from Johnson and Johnson for consultant services; compensation from Medtronic for consultant services; compensation from Rapid Medical for consultant services; and employment by University of Iowa. Dr Burkhardt reports compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; compensation from Longeviti Neuro Solutions LLC for consultant services; compensation from Q`Apel Medical for consultant services; compensation from Stryker for consultant services; and compensation from Cerenovous for consultant services. A.E. Hassan reports compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; compensation from Stryker Corporation for consultant services; compensation from GE Healthcare for consultant services; compensation from Penumbra, Inc for consultant services; compensation from Medtronic for consultant services; employment by Valley Baptist Medical Center; compensation from viz.ai for consultant services; and compensation from Cerenovus for consultant services. Dr Altschul reports compensation from Stryker Corporation for consultant services; compensation from Medtronic USA, Inc for consultant services; securities holdings in Von Vascular, Inc; stock options in Glia Medical; compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; compensation from Synchron for consultant services; compensation from Q’apel for consultant services; and compensation from Johnson and Johnson International for consultant services. Dr Mascitelli reports compensation from Imperative Care, Inc for consultant services and compensation from Stryker for consultant services. Dr Regenhardt reports compensation from Genomadix for consultant services; compensation from S2N Health for consultant services; compensation from Rapid Medical Ltd for data and safety monitoring services; and compensation from Penumbra, Inc for other services. Dr Wolfe reports employment by Wake Forest Baptist Health School of Medicine. Dr Ezzeldin reports compensation from viz.ai for consultant services; compensation from Imperative Care, Inc for consultant services; and an ownership stake in Galaxy Therapeutics. Dr Limaye reports compensation from Medtronic USA, Inc for consultant services and grants from Scientia Vascular. Dr Grandhi reports compensation from Cerenovus for consultant services; grants from Scientia Neurovascular; compensation from Stryker for consultant services; compensation from Integra LifeSciences Corporation for consultant services; compensation from Medtronic for consultant services; compensation from Balt USA, LLC for consultant services; and compensation from Rapid Medical Ltd for consultant services. Dr Tjoumakaris reports compensation from Medtronic for consultant services; compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; and employment by Thomas Jefferson University. Dr Raz reports compensation from Q Apel for consultant services; compensation from MicroVention, Inc for consultant services; compensation from Johnson and Johnson International for consultant services; compensation from imperative care for consultant services; stock holdings in Siemens; compensation from Medtronic for consultant services; compensation from Phenox for consultant services; compensation from Scientia for consultant services; compensation from Balt USA, LLC for consultant services; and employment by NYU Langone Medical Center. Syed F Zaidi: Dr Zaidi reports grants from Genentech USA, Inc. Dr Spiotta reports compensation from RapidAI for consultant services; compensation from Penumbra, Inc for consultant services; and compensation from Terumo for consultant services. Dr Kicielinski reports employment by Elsevier and compensation from Penumbra, Inc for other services. Dr Zaidat reports a patent issued for Ischemic stroke device. Dr Derdeyn reports compensation from NoNO for data and safety monitoring services; stock options in Euphrates Vascular; compensation from Silk Road Medical, Inc for data and safety monitoring services; and compensation from Penumbra, Inc for data and safety monitoring services. Dr Derdeyn reports data safety monitoring boards (Penumbra–MIND [A Prospective, Multicenter Study of Artemis a Minimally Invasive Neuro Evacuation Device, in the Removal of Intracerebral Hemorrhage], THUNDER [Acute Ischemic Stroke Study With the Penumbra System Including Thunderbolt Aspiration Tubing]; Silk Road–NITE [Neuroprotection in Transcarotid Embolectomy]; NoNO–ESCAPE NEXT [Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide in Participants With Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy Excluding Thrombolysis], FRONTIER); stock options–Euphrates Vascular. Dr Nguyen reports compensation from Aruna for consultant services; compensation from American Stroke Association for other services; compensation from Kaneka for other services; compensation from Genentech for other services; and compensation from Brainomix for consultant services. Dr de Havenon reports NIH/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funding (K23NS105924, UG3NS130228, R01NS130189) and has received consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk, royalty fees from UpToDate, and has equity in TitinKM and Certus. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background and Objectives: As the radial approach is gaining popularity in neurointervention, new radial-specific catheters are being manufactured while taking into consideration the smaller size of the radial artery, different trajectories of angles into the great vessels from the arm, and subsequent force vectors. We compared outcomes of transradial procedures performed using the Armadillo catheter (Q'Apel Medical Inc.) and the RIST radial guide catheter (Medtronic)., Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter study comparing outcomes of transradial neuroendovascular procedures using the Armadillo and RIST catheters at 2 institutions between 2021 and 2024., Results: The study comprised 206 patients, 96 of whom underwent procedures using the Armadillo and 110 using the RIST. Age and sex were comparable across cohorts. In most procedures, 1 target vessel was catheterized (Armadillo: 94.8% vs 89.1%, P = .29) with no significant difference between cohorts. The use of an intermediate catheter was minimal in both cohorts (Armadillo 5.2% vs RIST: 2.7%, P = .36), and the median number of major vessel catheterization did not significantly differ between cohorts (Armadillo: 1 [1-4] vs RIST: 1 [0-6], P = .21). Failure to catheterize the target vessel was encountered in 1 case in each cohort (Armadillo: 1.0% vs RIST: 0.9%, P = .18), and the rate did not significantly differ between cohorts. Similarly, the rate of conversion to femoral access was comparable between cohorts (Armadillo: 2.1% vs RIST: 1.8%, P = .55). There was no significant difference in access site complications (Armadillo: 1% vs RIST: 2.8%, P = .55) or neurological complications (Armadillo: 3.1% vs RIST: 5.5%, P = .42) between cohorts., Conclusion: No significant difference in successful catheterization of target vessels, procedure duration, triaxial system use, complication rates, or the need for transfemoral cross-over was observed between both catheters. Both devices offer high and comparable rates of technical success and low morbidity rates., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from distal medium vessel occlusion (DMVO) presents unique treatment challenges. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is emerging as a viable option for these patients, yet the role of pre-stroke aspirin treatment is unclear. This study evaluates the impact of pre-stroke low-dose aspirin on outcomes in DMVO patients undergoing MT., Methods: We conducted a multinational, multicenter, propensity score-weighted analysis within the Multicenter Analysis of primary Distal medium vessel occlusions: effect of Mechanical Thrombectomy (MAD-MT) registry. Patients with AIS due to DMVO, treated with MT, were included. We compared outcomes between patients on pre-stroke low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg) and those not on antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was functional independence at 90 days (mRS 0-2). Secondary outcomes included excellent functional outcome at 90 days (mRS 0-1), mortality, and day-one post-MT NIHSS score. Safety outcomes focused on hemorrhagic complications, including symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH)., Results: Among 1,354 patients, 150 were on pre-stroke low-dose aspirin. After applying Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW), Aspirin use was associated with significantly better functional outcomes (mRS 0-2: OR =1.89 , 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.12 ) and lower 90-day mortality (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.00). The aspirin group had lower NIHSS scores on day one (β = -1.5, 95% CI, -2.8 to - 0.27). The sICH rate was not significantly different between the groups (OR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.43)., Conclusions: Pre-stroke low-dose aspirin was associated with improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality in patients with DMVO undergoing MT, without a significant increase in sICH. These findings suggest that low-dose aspirin may be safe and associated with more frequent excellent outcomes for this patient population. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these results and assess long-term outcomes.

Background: Isolated anterior cerebral artery occlusions (ACAo) in patients with acute ischemic stroke present significant challenges due to their rarity. The efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy (EVT) in comparison with best medical therapy (BMT) for ACAo remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of these treatments., Methods: This multinational, multicenter study analyzed data from the MAD-MT registry. Data were collected retrospectively from 37 sites across North America, Asia, and Europe. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to balance confounding variables. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included excellent outcomes (mRS 0-1), mortality at 90 days, and NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score on day 1 post treatment., Results: Of the 108 patients, 36 received BMT and 72 underwent EVT. The median age was 75 years, and 56% were male. At 90 days, 40% of patients achieved mRS 0-2, with no significant difference between EVT and BMT (38% vs 45%, p=0.46). Procedural success (mTICI 2b-3) was 91% in the EVT group, with a sICH rate of 2.9%. IPTW-adjusted analysis showed no significant difference between EVT and BMT for functional independence (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.23 to 6.02, p=0.85), mortality (25% vs 21%, p=0.71) or day 1 NIHSS scores (Beta 2.2, 95% CI -0.51 to 4.8, p=0.11)., Conclusions: EVT showed high procedural success but did not significantly improve functional outcomes or mortality compared with BMT in patients with ACAo. Further randomized trials are needed to clarify EVT's role in ACAo., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RWR serves on a DSMB for a trial sponsored by Rapid Medical, serves as site PI for studies sponsored by Penumbra and Microvention, and receives stroke research grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology, and Heitman Stroke Foundation. AG reports consultancy for Rapid Medical and Phenox, not directly related to the present work. FC reports conflicts of interest with Medtronic, Balt Extrusion (consultant), ClinSearch (core lab), Penumbra, Stryker (payment for reading) and Artedrone (Board); all not directly related to the present work. NH received support from NINDS NS131756, NINR NR020231, and NINDS NS113844 during the conduct of the study. All unrelated to the present work. DSL is consultant as Imaging Core Lab to Cerenovus, Genentech, Medtronic, Stryker, Rapid Medical. LLLY reports advisory work for AstraZeneca, substantial support from NMRC Singapore and is a medical advisor for See-mode, Cortiro and Sunbird Bio, with equity in Ceroflo. All unrelated to the present work. CJG reports a proctoring agreement with Medtronic and research funding by Penumbra. GM reports conflicts of interest with Microvention Europe, Stryker Neurovascular, Balt, Sim and Cure (consulting), Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Penumbra, Bracco, and Phenox (paid lectures), all not directly related to the present work. ASP is a consultant for Medtronic Neurovascular, Stryker Neurovascular, Balt, Q’Apel Medical, Cerenovus, Microvention, Imperative Care, Agile, Merit, CereVasc and Arsenal Medical, he received research grants from NIH, Microvention, Cerenovus, Medtronic Neurovascular and Stryker Neurovascular, and holds stocks in InNeuroCo, Agile, Perfuze, Galaxy and NTI. Dr Tjoumakaris is a consultant for Medtronic and Microvention (funds paid to institution, not personally). PJ is a consultant for Medtronic, Microvention and Cerus. BP reports consultancy Microvention, Stryker, Q’apel, and Nuvascular, all not directly related to the present work. JES has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, and has received funding from the National Institutes of Health (R61NS135583), Viz.ai, Philips, and Medtronic. TNN reports Associate Editor of Stroke; advisory for Aruna Bio, Brainomix., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are uncommon cerebral lesions that can cause significant neurological complications. Surgical resection is the gold standard for treatment, but endovascular embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are viable alternatives., Objective: To compare the outcomes of endovascular embolization versus SRS in the treatment of AVMs with Spetzler-Martin grades I-III., Methods: This study combined retrospective data from 10 academic institutions in North America and Europe. Patients aged 1 to 90 years who underwent endovascular embolization or SRS for AVMs with Spetzler-Martin grades I-III between January 2010 and December 2023 were included., Results: The study included 244 patients, including 84 who had endovascular embolization and 160 who had SRS. Before propensity score matching (PSM), complete obliteration at the last follow-up was achieved in 74.5% of the SRS group compared with 57.8% of the embolization group (OR=0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.48; P=0.01). After propensity score matching, SRS still achieved significantly higher occlusion rates at last follow-up (78.9% vs 55.3%; OR=0.32; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.90; P=0.03).Hemorrhagic complications were higher in the embolization group than in the SRS group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance after PSM (13.2% vs 2.6%; OR=5.6; 95% CI 0.62 to 50.47; P=0.12). Similarly, re-treatment rate was higher in the embolization group (10.5% vs 5.3%; OR=2.11; 95% CI 0.36 to 12.31; P=0.40) compared with the SRS group., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that SRS has a significantly higher obliteration rate at last follow-up compared with endovascular embolization. Also, SRS has a higher tendency for fewer hemorrhagic complications and lower re-treatment rate. Further prospective studies are needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Current randomized controlled trials are investigating the efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) stroke. Whether best medical management (MM) is more efficient than unsuccessful vessel recanalization during MT remains unknown., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from 37 academic centers across North America, Asia, and Europe between September 2017 and July 2021. Only patients with occlusion of the distal branches (M2 and M3) of the middle cerebral artery territory were included. Unsuccessful MT was defined as a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 0-2a. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounders. The primary outcome was functional independence, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 90 days after treatment. Multivariable regression analysis was used to assess factors associated with the primary outcome., Results: Of 2903 patients screened for eligibility, 532 patients were analyzed (266 per group) after propensity score matching. The MM group had superior functional outcomes, with 32% achieving mRS 0-1 at 90 days compared with 21% in the MT group (P=0.011). Patients in the MM group also had significantly lower rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (3.4% vs 16%, P<0.001) and any hemorrhage (18% vs 48%, P<0.001). On multivariable regression, unsuccessful MT was associated with reduced odds of functional independence (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.85, P=0.011) and increased odds of sICH (OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.84 to 10.10, P<0.001). Mortality rates were similar between groups (27% in MM vs 29% in MT, P=0.73)., Conclusion: Unsuccessful MT for MeVO was linked to worse outcomes than best MM. These findings highlight the risks of prolonged attempts and emphasize the importance of efficient procedural decision-making to reduce complications and improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Introduction: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) efficacy in medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) stroke, particularly in patients with low Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), remains less explored., Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from 443 AIS patients treated with MT for MeVO and low ASPECTS (4-7) at 37 centers across North America, Asia, and Europe, from September 2017 to July 2021. Patients were categorized into ASPECTS of 4-5 and 6-7., Results: Of 443 patients, 51 (12%) had ASPECTS of 4-5, and 392 (88%) had scores of 6-7. The median age was 65 years (IQR: 46-79), with a balanced sex distribution between the groups. The most common site of initial occlusion was M2 branch in both groups (92% in ASPECTS 4-5 and 85% in ASPECTS 6-7) (p = 0.68). The ASPECTS 4-5 group had lower TICI 2c-3 achievement (31% vs. 55%, p = 0.002) and poorer functional outcomes (mRS 0-1 at 90 days: 12% vs. 29%, p = 0.03) compared to the ASPECTS 6-7 group. Intracranial hemorrhagic complications were higher in the ASPECTS 4-5 group (69% vs. 47%, p = 0.007). Multivariable analysis revealed ASPECTS 6-7 to be associated with higher odds of TICI 2c-3 (OR: 2.5; CI: 1.28 to 4.89, p = 0.007) and lower odds of intracranial hemorrhagic complications (OR: 0.4; CI: 0.19 to 0.81, p = 0.012)., Conclusion: MT may be associated with improved outcomes in patients with moderate-to-low ASPECTS (6-7), though the lack of a control group limits definitive conclusions about its effectiveness. In patients with very low ASPECTS (4-5), higher rates of hemorrhagic complications and poorer outcomes were observed, but this does not necessarily preclude the use of MT. These findings highlight the need for further research and careful patient selection., Competing Interests: Declarations. Informed consent and ethical approval: The study received approval from the local ethical standards committee at each participating site, and informed consent from patients was waived. The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Conflicts of interest/Competing interests (appropriate disclosures): Dr. Regenhardt serves on a DSMB for a trial sponsored by Rapid Medical, serves as site PI for studies sponsored by Penumbra and Microvention, and receives stroke research grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology, and Heitman Stroke Foundation. Dr. Guenego reports consultancy for Rapid Medical and Phenox, not directly related to the present work. Dr. Clarençon reports conflicts of interest with Medtronic, Balt Extrusion (consultant), ClinSearch (core lab), Penumbra, Stryker (payment for reading) and Artedrone (Board); all not directly related to the present work. Dr. Henninger received support from W81XWH-19-PRARP-RPA form the CDMRP/DoD, NS131756 and U24NS113844 from the NINDS, and NR020231 from the NINR and received compensation from Myrobalan, Inc. and General Dynamics during the conduct of this study unrelated to this work. Dr. Liebeskind is consultant as Imaging Core Lab to Cerenovus, Genentech, Medtronic, Stryker, Rapid Medical. Dr. Yeo reports Advisory work for AstraZeneca, Substantial support from NMRC Singapore and is a medical advisor for See-mode, Cortiro and Sunbird Bio, with equity in Ceroflo. All unrelated to the present work. Dr. Griessenauer reports a proctoring agreement with Medtronic and research funding by Penumbra. Dr. Marnat reports conflicts of interest with Microvention Europe, Stryker Neurovascular, Balt (consulting), Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson and Phenox (paid lectures), all not directly related to the present work. Dr. Puri is a consultant for Medtronic Neurovascular, Stryker NeurovascularBalt, Q’Apel Medical, Cerenovus, Microvention, Imperative Care, Agile, Merit, CereVasc and Arsenal Medical, he received research grants from NIH, Microvention, Cerenovus, Medtronic Neurovascular and Stryker Neurovascular, and holds stocks in InNeuroCo, Agile, Perfuze, Galaxy and NTI. Dr. Tjoumakaris is a consultant for Medtronic and Microvention (funds paid to institution, not personally). Dr. Jabbour is a consultant for Medtronic, Microvention and Cerus., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: The FRED-X is a newer generation flow diverting stent (FDS) with surface modification that has demonstrated favorable efficacy in treating intracranial aneurysms. Our study provides an analysis of patients treated using FRED-X compared to FRED, PED Shield and PED., Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective single center study and a systematic review with network meta analysis of patients who underwent flow diversion using FRED-X, FRED, PED Shield or PED. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess long-term outcomes of interest- angiographic occlusion, in-stent stenosis and functional outcome at 6- and 12-month follow up., Results: 386 patients with 386 aneurysms were included. The average age of the cohort was 56.2 years, and 81 % was female. PED had significantly higher aneurysm occlusion rates compared to FRED-X at 6- and 12-months (OR: 3.03, 95 % CI: 1.36-6.62 and OR: 4.01, 95 % CI: 1.26-12.2), with higher odds of absent in-stent stenosis (OR: 9.03, 95 % CI: 3.63-23.3 and OR: 9.58, 95 % CI: 2.56-33.8) at 6- and 12-months, respectively. Rates of stroke, TIA, ICH and mortality were not significantly different across cohorts. All patients were functionally independent on follow-up. A network meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in occlusion rates among each of the included FDS., Conclusion: Our study revealed comparable 12-month occlusion rates and in-stent stenosis between surface modified devices, FRED-X and PED Shield. In addition, angiographic results were comparable between FRED-X and the first generation FRED, however classic PED demonstrated higher rates of angiographic occlusion with lower in-stent stenosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)