Treatment of XXXX With the Pipeline Embolization Device.

@entity1 @entity548 @entity887 @entity439 @entity397 @entity1756
BACKGROUND:: The pipeline @entity887 device (PED) has been used for treatment of @entity439 . Little is known about the use of the PED in @entity1756 . OBJECTIVE:: To assess the safety and efficacy of the PED in @entity1756 . METHODS:: This is a case series with prospective data collection on 20 @entity1 with freshly @entity1756 who were treated with PED (with or without adjunctive coiling) at 2 cerebrovascular centers. @entity1 were loaded with aspirin and clopidogrel or received an infusion of tirofiban intraoperatively. RESULTS:: Hunt and Hess grades were I in 7 @entity1 (35%), II in 9 (45%), and III in 4 (20%). The mean duration from @entity548 to PED placement was 7    7.0 days. A single device was used in all but 1 @entity1 (95%). The procedure was staged in 20%. There was only 1 complication (5%); this was a fatal intraoperative aneurysm dome @entity397 that occurred during adjunctive coil deployment. Adjunctive coiling was used in 30%. No @entity1 required an invasive procedure after PED placement. Follow-up angiography (mean, 5.3    4.2 months; range, 2-12 months) showed 100% occlusion in 12 (80%) and incomplete occlusion in 3 @entity1 (20%). At latest follow-up, 19 @entity1 achieved a favorable outcome (modified rankin scale 0-2). CONCLUSION:: In our preliminary experience, treatment of @entity1756 with the PED was associated with low complication rates, high occlusion rates, and favorable outcomes. These findings suggest that PED may be a safe and effective option for @entity1 with favorable Hunt and Hess grades and @entity439 to treat with conventional methods. ABBREVIATIONS:: FDA, Food and Drug AdministrationPED, pipeline @entity887 device.
