Versatile use of catheter systems for deployment of the Pipeline embolization device: a comparison of biaxial and triaxial catheter systems. (20th January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vakharia, Kunal; Waqas, Muhammad; Shakir, Hakeem J; Chin, Felix; Hartke, Joelle N; Shallwani, Hussain; Beecher, Jeffrey S; Siddiqui, Adnan H; Levy, Elad I
• Is Part Of: Journal of neurointerventional surgery. Volume 12:Number 6(2020)
• Page Start: 585
• Page End: 590
• Publication Date: 2020-01-20
• Subjects: aneurysm -- catheter -- flow diverter -- technique -- technology; Nervous system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Cerebrovascular disease -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.48
• DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015610
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1759-8478

Abstract

Abstract : Background: A Pipeline embolization device (PED; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) can be deployed using either a biaxial or a triaxial catheter delivery system. Objective: To compare the use of these two catheter delivery systems for intracranial aneurysm treatment with the PED. Methods: A retrospective study of patients undergoing PED deployment with biaxial or triaxial catheter systems between 2014 and 2016 was conducted. Experienced neurointerventionalists performed the procedures. Patients who received multiple PEDs or adjunctive coils were excluded. The two groups were compared for PED deployment time, total fluoroscopy time, patient radiation exposure, complications, and cost. Results: Eighty-two patients with 89 intracranial aneurysms were treated with one PED each. In 49 cases, PEDs were deployed using biaxial access; triaxial access was used in 33 cases. Time (min) from guide catheter run to PED deployment was significantly shorter in the biaxial group (24.0±18.7 vs 38.4±31.1, P=0.006) as was fluoroscopy time (28.8±23.0 vs 50.3±27.1, P=0.001). Peak radiation skin exposure (mGy) in the biaxial group was less than in the triaxial group (1243.7±808.2 vs 2074.6±1505.6, P=0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in transient and permanent complication rates or modified Rankin Scale scores at 30 days. The triaxial access system cost more than the biaxial access system (average $3285 vs $1790, respectively). Occlusion rates at last follow-up (mean 6 months) were similar between the two systems (average 88.1%: biaxial, 89.2%: triaxial). Conclusion: Our results indicate near-equivalent safety and effectiveness between biaxial and triaxial approaches. Some reductions in cost and procedure time were noted with the biaxial system.