Pipeline versus Tubridge in the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms

Abstract

Abstract Background To compare the safety and efficacy of pipeline embolization device (PED) and Tubridge flow diverter (TFD) for unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms. Methods Posterior aneurysm patients treated with PED or TFD between January, 2019, and December, 2021, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ demographics, aneurysm characteristics, treatment details, complications, and follow-up information were collected. The procedural-related complications and angiographic and clinical outcome were compared. Results A total of 107 patients were involved; PED was applied for 55 patients and TFD for 52 patients. A total of 9 (8.4%) procedural-related complications occurred, including 4 (7.3%) in PED group and 5 (9.6%) in TFD group. During a mean of 10.3-month angiographic follow-up for 81 patients, complete occlusion was achieved in 35 (85.4%) patients in PED group and 30 (75.0%) in TFD group. The occlusion rate of PED group is slightly higher than that of TFD group. A mean of 25.0-month clinical follow-up for 107 patients showed that favorable clinical outcome was achieved in 53 (96.4%) patients in PED group and 50 (96.2%) patients in TFD group, respectively. No statistical difference was found in terms of procedural-related complications (p = 0.737), occlusion rate (p = 0.241), and favorable clinical outcome (0.954) between groups. Conclusions The current study found no difference in complication, occlusion, and clinical outcome between PED and TFD for unruptured PCAs.

Keywords

• Pipeline embolization device
• Tubridge flow diverter
• Posterior circulation aneurysm