Search

Background To assess the frequency, imaging appearances, and risk factors of brain microemboli following pediatric neuroangiography, as assessed by early diffusion-weighted MRI imaging (DWI). Methods This single-center, retrospective analysis investigated early DWI post-pediatric neuroangiography. Patients aged 0-18 years who had diagnostic neuroangiography and DWI within a week postprocedure were included. Data on clinical and procedural parameters and MRI findings were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on the following risk factors: age, weight, vasculopathy, antiplatelet drug use, access type, intraprocedural heparin, procedure duration, neck arteries catheterized, and angiographic runs. A p-value<0.05 indicated statistical significance. Results Eighty-two children were included (40.2% female), mean age 10.1±4.5 years (range: 7 months-17 years). There were no intraprocedural thromboembolic complications recognized. DWI positivity was seen following 3.6% (3/82) procedures: two with transient symptoms, and one instance of silent microemboli. There were no territorial infarcts or clinical stroke. Children with underlying vasculopathy had a higher risk of microemboli from angiography than children without vasculopathy (OR 31.6, p=0.02), and the OR of microemboli following transradial angiography was 79.1 (p=0.005) as compared with transfemoral angiography. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed a significant association between microemboli and number of angiographic runs (p=0.004). Follow-up MRI in all three patients showed no residual abnormal signal. Conclusions Cerebral microemboli are unusual following uncomplicated neuroangiography in children. However, in the presence of underlying vasculopathy and with transradial technique, the incidence approaches that reported in the adult literature. An increased association with the number of angiographic runs is an important and controllable factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background M2 segment occlusions represent approximately one-third of non-lacunar ischemic stroke and can lead to permanent neurological deficits. Various techniques are available for mechanical thrombectomy beyond the circle of Willis, but data evaluating their effectiveness and safety are lacking. Methods A retrospective review of patients with ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for M2 occlusions from 13 centers in North American and Europe was performed. Tandem or multiple-territory occlusions were excluded. The primary outcome was 90-day modified Rankin Scale and reperfusion rates across stent-retriever, direct aspiration and combined techniques. Results There were 465 patients (mean age 71.48±14.03 years, 53.1% female) with M2 occlusions who underwent mechanical thrombectomy. Stentretriever alone was used in 133 (28.6%), direct aspiration alone in 93 (20.0%) and the combined technique in 239 (51.4%) patients. Successful reperfusion was achieved with the combined technique in 198 (82.2%; OR 2.6 (1.1-6.9)), with stent-retriever alone in 112 (84.2%; OR 9.2 (1.9-44.6)) and with direct aspiration alone in 62 (66.7%; referencecategory). Intraprocedural subarachnoid hemorrhages (iSAH) were 36 (7.7%) and were more likely to occur in patients treated with the stent-retrievers (OR 5.0 (1.1-24.3)) and combined technique (OR 4.6 (1.1-20.9)). Good clinical outcome was achieved in 260 (61.8%) patients, while 59 (14.0%) patients died. Older age, higher baseline NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale), parenchymal hemorrhage and iSAH were associated with poor outcome while successful recanalization and higher baseline ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) were associated with good outcome. No differences were found among the three techniques in terms of clinical outcome. Conclusion Stent-retrievers and a combined approach for M2 occlusions seem more effective than direct aspiration, but with higher rates of iSAH. This leads to no detectable difference in clinical outcome at 3 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited research exists regarding the impact of neuroimaging on endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) decisions for late-window cases of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke., Objective: T0 assess whether perfusion CT imaging: (1) alters the proportion of recommendations for EVT, and (2) enhances the reliability of EVT decision-making compared with non-contrast CT and CT angiography., Methods: We conducted a survey using 30 patients drawn from an institutional database of 3144 acute stroke cases. These were presented to 29 Canadian physicians with and without perfusion imaging. We used non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals and difference in agreement classification as criteria to suggest a difference between the Gwet AC1 statistics (κ G )., Results: The percentage of EVT recommendations differed by 1.1% with or without perfusion imaging. Individual decisions changed in 21.4% of cases (11.3% against EVT and 10.1% in favor). Inter-rater agreement (κ G ) among the 29 raters was similar between non-perfusion and perfusion CT neuroimaging (κ G =0.487; 95% CI 0.327 to 0.647 and κ G =0.552; 95% CI 0.430 to 0.675). The 95% CIs overlapped with moderate agreement in both. Intra-rater agreement exhibited overlapping 95% CIs for all 28 raters. κ G was either substantial or excellent (0.81-1) for 71.4% (20/28) of raters in both groups., Conclusions: Despite the minimal difference in overall EVT recommendations with either neuroimaging protocol one in five decisions changed with perfusion imaging. Regarding agreement we found that the use of automated CT perfusion images does not significantly impact the reliability of EVT decisions for patients with late-window LVO., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JWBD: Honoraria from Medtronic. Travel grant fromMicrovention; MAA: Member of the scientific advisory board of Palmera Medical;TRM: Principal of eVasc Neurovascular., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device is a novel intrasaccular flow disruptor tailored for bifurcation aneurysms. We aim to describe the degree of aneurysm occlusion at the latest follow-up, and the rate of complications of aneurysms treated with the WEB device stratified according to rupture status., Methods: Our data were taken from the WorldWideWeb Consortium, an international multicenter cohort including patients treated with the WEB device. Aneurysms were classified into two groups: ruptured and unruptured. We compared clinical and radiologic outcomes of both groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was done to match according to age, gender, bifurcation, location, prior treatment, neck, height, dome width, daughter sac, incorporated branch, pretreatment antiplatelets, and last imaging follow-up., Results: The study included 676 patients with 691 intracranial aneurysms (529 unruptured and 162 ruptured) treated with the WEB device. The PSM analysis had 55 pairs. In both the unmatched (85.8% vs 84.3%, p=0.692) and matched (94.4% vs 83.3%, p=0.066) cohorts there was no significant difference in the adequate occlusion rate at the last follow-up. Likewise, there were no significant differences in both ischemic and hemorrhagic complications between the two groups. There was no documented aneurysm rebleeding after WEB device implantation., Conclusion: There was no significant difference in both the radiologic outcomes and complications between unruptured and ruptured aneurysms. Our findings support the feasibility of treatment of ruptured aneurysms with the WEB device., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JDBD: Honoraria from Medtronic. Travel grant from Microvention. MD: No relevant relationships NA: No relevant relationships RWR: Grants from National Institutes of Health, Heitman foundation, Society of vascular and interventional neurology; Advisory board participation for Rapid medical; Site PI for Microvention and Penumbra JEV: No relevant relationships AG : No relevant relationships SVL: No relevant relationships LR: No relevant relationships AAB: No relevant relationships ES: No relevant relationships KP: No relevant relationships KEL: No relevant relationships GS : No relevant relationships MAM: No relevant relationships IL: No relevant relationships PMR: No relevant relationships JAV: Fees from MicroVention for proctoring cases for new physician users of the Woven EndoBridge device; Medtronic travel expense VŽ: Participation on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for KBC Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb / OB Nova Gradiška MUH: No relevant relationships CR: No relevant relationships HR: No relevant relationships VMT: No relevant relationships SM: No relevant relationships SG: No relevant relationships PH: No relevant relationships NA: No relevant relationships JDR: No relevant relationships YR: No relevant relationships CMS: No relevant relationships OG: No relevant relationships MP: No relevant relationships ALK: No relevant relationships CM: No relevant relationships SE: No relevant relationships RMS: Supported by the NREF, Joe Niekro Foundation, Brain Aneurysm Foundation, Bee Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health (R01NS111119-01A1, UL1TR002736, and KL2TR002737) through the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute, from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. AH: Consulting or speaker fees from Medtronic, MicroVention, Stryker, Penumbra, Cerenovus, Genentech, GE Healthcare, Scientia, Balt, Viz.ai, Insera Therapeutics, Proximie, NeuroVasc, NovaSignal, Vesalio, and Galaxy Therapeutics. AS: No relevant relationships AN: No relevant relationships JJ: Consulting and speaker fees from Cerenovus MP: No relevant relationships JS: No relevant relationships CPF: No relevant relationships MBB: No relevant relationships MM: Grants from Balt, Medtronic, MicroVention, and Stryker. MMS: No relevant relationships JB: No relevant relationships BTJ: No relevant relationships RAD: No relevant relationships TH: No relevant relationships RT: Medtronic Stocks CU: No relevant relationships BL : No relevant relationships PP: No relevant relationships ASP: Grants from NIH, Microvention, Cerenovus, Medtronic and Stryker; Consulting fees from Neurovascular, Stryker NeurovascularBalt, Q’Apel Medical, Cerenovus, Microvention, Imperative Care, Agile, Merit, CereVasc and Arsenal Medical; stock options from InNeuroCo, Agile, Perfuze, Galaxy and NTI GP: No relevant relationships CJG: Grants to institution from Medtronic and Penumbra; consulting fees from Stryker and MicroVention. HA: Proctoring fees from MicroVention. Grants to institution from the National Institutes of Health; consulting fees from Amnis Therapeutics, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems, Cardinal Health 200, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Cerenovus, Cerevatech Medical, Cordis, Corindus, EndoStream Medical, Imperative Care, Integra, IRRAS, Medtronic, MicroVention, Minnetronix Neuro, Penumbra, Q’Apel Medical, Rapid Medical, Serenity Medical, Silk Road Medical, StimMed, Stryker Neurovascular, Three Rivers Medical, VasSol, Viz.ai, and W.L. Gore & Associates; payment for participation on the steering committees for the Cerenovus EXCELLENT and ARISE II Trial; Medtronic SWIFT PRIME, VANTAGE, EMBOLISE, and SWIFT DIRECT Trials; MicroVention FRED Trial and CONFIDENCE Study; MUSC POSITIVE Trial; Penumbra 3D Separator Trial, COMPASS Trial, INVEST Trial, MIVI Neuroscience EVAQ Trial; Rapid Medical SUCCESS Trial; InspireMD C-GUARDIANS IDE Pivotal Trial; stock or stock options in Adona Medical, Amnis Therapeutics, Bend IT Technologies, BlinkTBI, Buffalo Technology Partners, Cardinal Consultants, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Cerevatech Medical, Cognition Medical, CVAID, E8, EndoStream Medical, Imperative Care, Instylla, International Medical Distribution Partners, Launch NY, NeuroRadial Technologies, Neurotechnology Investors, Neurovascular Diagnostics, Perflow Medical, Q’Apel Medical, QAS.ai, Radical Catheter Technologies, Rebound Therapeutics (purchased in 2019 by Integra Lifesciences), Rist Neurovascular (purchased in 2020 by Medtronic), Sense Diagnostics, Serenity Medical, Silk Road Medical, Songbird Therapy, Spinnaker Medical, StimMed, Synchron, Three Rivers Medical, Truvic Medical, Tulavi Therapeutics, Vastrax, VICIS, and Viseon AFD: Consulting fees from Cerenovus, Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, Oculus, and Koswire. No relevant relationships RD: No relevant relationships PK: No relevant relationships. VK: No relevant relationships. PL: No relevant relationships SB: No relevant relationships CJS: Participation on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Zoll Circulation JK: No relevant relationships PJ: No relevant relationships ST: No relevant relationships FC: No relevant relationships NL: Honoraria for lectures from Cerenovus, Stryker, and CrossMed. MAA: Funding to institution from MicroVention for WEBIT trial; proctoring fees from MicroVention. HHC: No relevant relationships CC: Consulting fees from MicroVention, Stryker, Medtronic, MIVI, and Cerenovus. ABP: Grant to institution from Medtronic; consulting fees from MicroVention, Medtronic, and Q’Apel; workstation for research from Siemens AAD: No relevant relationships, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Flow diversion is a common endovascular treatment for cerebral aneurysms, but studies comparing different types of flow diverters are scarce., Objective: To perform a propensity score matched cohort study comparing the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and Flow Redirection Intraluminal Device (FRED) for posterior circulation aneurysms., Methods: Consecutive aneurysms of the posterior circulation treated at 25 neurovascular centers with either PED or FRED were collected. Propensity score matching was used to control for age, duration of follow-up imaging, adjunctive coiling, and aneurysm location, size, and morphology; previously ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The two devices were compared for the following outcomes: procedural complications, aneurysm occlusion, and functional outcome., Results: A total of 375 aneurysms of the posterior circulation were treated in 369 patients. The PED was used in 285 (77.2%) and FRED in 84 (22.8%) procedures. Aneurysms treated with the PED were more commonly fusiform and larger than those treated with FRED. To account for these important differences, propensity score matching was performed resulting in 33 PED and FRED unruptured aneurysm pairs. No differences were found in occlusion status and neurologic thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications between the two devices. The proportion of patients with favorable functional outcome was higher with FRED (100% vs 87.9%, p=0.04)., Conclusion: Comparative analysis of PED and FRED for the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms did not identify significant differences in aneurysm occlusion or neurologic complications. Variations in functional outcomes warrant additional investigations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Ajith Thomas: DSMB SCENT trial by STRYKER. Funds paid to institution.Ramesh Grandhi: Consultant for Medtronic neurovascular, BALT neurovascular and Cerenovus.Christoph Griessenauer: Consultant for Stryker and received research funding from Medtronic.Naci Kocer: Consultant and proctoring agreement with MicroVention.Philipp Taussky:Reply: Consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, Cerenovus.Peter Kan: Consultant for Stryker, Medtronic, MicroVention, and Cerenovus.Vincent Tutino: Co-founder of Neurovascular Diagnostics, Inc.Monika Killer: Research grant from MicroVention/Terumo.Waleed Brinjikji: Microvention and Cerenovus consultant.Tom Marotta: Medtronic proctoring.Timo Krings: Consultant for Stryker, Medtronic, Penumbra, Cerenovus. stockholder in Marblehead Inc, royalties from Thieme.Clemens Schirmer: Research Support from Penumbra. Shareholder in Neurotechnology Investors.Giuseppe Lanzino: Consultant for Superior Medical Editing and Nested Knowledge.Christian Ulfert: Consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson.Charles Matouk: Consultant for Medtronic, Penumbra, Silk Road MedicalMarkus Mohlenbruch: Consultant for Medtronic, MicroVention, Stryker. Grants/grants pending: Balt (money paid to the institution), MicroVention (money paid to the institution). Payment for lectures includings service on speakers bureaus: Medtronic, MicroVention, and Stryker.Marshall Cress: Consulting for Cannon and Cerenovus.None related to this study and none are declared for the reminder of the authors., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)