Lower-Ischemic-Risk Profile of Coated Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device X Compared With Uncoated Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device Flow Diverter in the Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms
- PMID: 39471102
- DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000003188
Lower-Ischemic-Risk Profile of Coated Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device X Compared With Uncoated Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device Flow Diverter in the Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms
Abstract
Background and objectives: Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device (FRED) X is a new generation flow diverter with an antithrombotic surface coating. This study compares the procedural safety and short-term efficacy of FRED X with its uncoated predecessor, the FRED.
Methods: Patients treated with FRED and FRED X devices for unruptured aneurysms between 2013 and 2023 at 3 neurovascular centers were retrospectively reviewed. The procedural ischemic event rate was the safety end point, and the complete aneurysm occlusion rate at 1 year was the efficacy end point. Multivariable regression adjustment and 1:1 propensity score matching were performed to control for potential confounding.
Results: The FRED X group (137 patients) had a higher prevalence of recurrent and bifurcation aneurysms and fewer aneurysms with branch involvement than the FRED X group (156 patients). The ischemic event rate was lower in FRED X (1/156 [0.6%]) than in FRED (7/137 [5.1%]), which was significant after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio: 8.8, 95% CI: 1.1-72.7, P = .04), and tended to be significant in the propensity score analysis (P = .07). Morbidity was comparable between FRED (2.2%) and FRED X (0%, P = .10). The complete occlusion rates of FRED vs FRED X were 73/117 (62.4%) vs 39/54 (72.2%) aneurysms at 6 months (P = .21) and 52/74 (70.3%) vs 27/37 (73.0%) at 12 months (P = .77). Hemorrhagic complications, in-stent stenosis, and clinical events during follow-up and retreatments were not significantly different between groups.
Conclusion: This study indicates an improved ischemic risk profile of FRED X while maintaining a favorable efficacy profile, warranting further study and translation into clinical use.
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.
References
-
- Kallmes DF, Hanel R, Lopes D, et al. International retrospective study of the pipeline embolization device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(1):108-115.
-
- Brinjikji W, Murad MH, Lanzino G, et al. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 2013;44(2):442-447.
-
- Chiu A, Cheung A, Wenderoth J, et al. Long-term follow-up results following elective treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(9):1728-1734.
-
- Starke RM, Thompson J, Pagani A, et al. Preclinical safety and efficacy evaluation of the pipeline vantage embolization device with shield technology. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(10):981-986.
-
- Yoshizawa K, Kobayashi H, Kaneki A, et al. Poly (2-methoxyethyl acrylate)(PMEA) improves the thromboresistance of FRED flow diverters: a thrombogenic evaluation of flow diverters with human blood under flow conditions. J Neurointerv Surg. 2023;15(10):1001-1006.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
