Search

Cerebral proliferative angiopathy (CPA) is an entity distinct from that of classical arteriovenous malformations. As such, few reports have considered the long-term follow-up of patients with hemorrhage in CPA. Accordingly, herein the authors present a case of recurrent hemorrhage in CPA with 32 years of follow-up and in so doing summarize the literature of hemorrhagic cases in CPA. A 19-year-old presented with focal awareness seizures and diagnostic work-up revealed a left hemispheric vascular lesion. The patient presented again with intracranial hemorrhage at ages 28, 43 and 51. Angioarchitectural workup revealed intermingled brain parenchyma between vascular spaces, absence of dominant feeders and a clear nidus consistent with CPA. The size and diffuse nature of the lesion deemed it inoperable. Given our case and review of the literature it is apparent that CPA has a high risk of re-hemorrhage in the rare event that hemorrhage does occur.

Background and purpose Data differentiating flow diversion properties of commercially available low- and high-porosity stents are limited. This in vitro study applies angiographic analysis of intra-aneurysmal flow to compare the flow-diversion performance of five neurovascular devices in idealized sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm models. Methods Five commercial devices (Enterprise, Neuroform, LVIS, FRED, and Pipeline) were implanted in silicone sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm models under physiological average flow of blood analog fluid. High-speed angiographic images were acquired pre- and post-device implantation and contrast concentration-time curves within the aneurysm were recorded. The curves were quantified with five parameters to assess changes in contrast transport, and thus aneurysm hemodynamics, due to each device. Results Inter-device flow-diversion performance was more easily distinguished in the sidewall model than the bifurcation model. There were no obvious overall statistical trends in the bifurcation parameters but the Pipeline performed marginally better than the other devices. In the sidewall geometry, overall evidence suggests that the LVIS performed better than the Neuroform and Enterprise. The Pipeline and FRED devices were statistically superior to the three stents and Pipeline was superior to FRED in all sidewall parameters evaluated. Conclusions Based on this specific set of experiments, lower-porosity flow diverters perform significantly better in reducing intra-aneurysmal flow activity than higher-porosity stents in sidewall-type geometries. The LVIS device is potentially a better flow diverter than the Neuroform and Enterprise devices, while the Pipeline is potentially better than the FRED.