Endovascular coiling of small XXXX using a very soft bare platinum coil: A comparison of the packing performance of new and old HyperSoft   helical coils.

@entity1 @entity439 @entity438
AIMS: Soft and small coils are known to be appropriate for the treatment of small @entity439 . The purpose of this study was to determine whether the new HyperSoft   helical coil, which is softer and smaller than its predecessors, has any effect on the packing performance in a matched-pair study with an old HyperSoft   helical coil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive @entity1 harboring 43 @entity438 treated with new HyperSofts were included in this study. Forty-one @entity439 treated with old HyperSofts were identified from our database as matched controls based on similar volumes and locations. Packing attenuation, adverse events during the procedures, and angiographic occlusions were observed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean packing density was significantly higher in the new HyperSoft   group compared to the control group (35.5% vs. 26.9%), and a larger proportion of the @entity439 embolized with the 1.5   mm size coil, which has higher packing density. There was no difference in immediate and midterm angiographic outcomes. There was no difference in the rate of intraprocedural perforation, but there was no intraprocedural rupture related to the 1.5   mm coil. CONCLUSIONS: The use of new HyperSoft   helical coils allows higher packing density comparable with the old technology. New HyperSoft   coils, especially those with 1.5   mm loop diameter, can be expected to fill smaller residual spaces in small @entity439 and may be helpful in preventing recanalization.
