Incidence and Clinical Implications of Carotid Branch Occlusion Following Treatment of Internal Carotid XXXX With the Pipeline Embolization Device.

@entity1 @entity51 @entity439 @entity29624 @entity432 @entity732 @entity438
BACKGROUND:: The use of flow diverters such as the pipeline embolization device (PED) for treatment of @entity438 carries the risk of side @entity732 . OBJECTIVE:: To determine the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with supraclinoid internal carotid artery (ICA) @entity732 after deployment of PEDs for ICA @entity439 . METHODS:: We reviewed @entity1 who underwent endovascular treatment with PEDs for ICA @entity439 between June 2011 and March 2013. Forty-nine @entity1 (43 @entity1 , mean age 56.3    1.8 years, 68 @entity439 ) in whom PEDs traversed the origin of supraclinoid ICA branches (ophthalmic [OA], posterior communicating [PcommA], and anterior choroidal artery [AChA]) were selected for this study. Follow-up angiograms (mean follow-up, 12.8    0.8 months) were studied to determine the location of PEDs and the patency of ICA branches. RESULTS:: PEDs were placed across the ostia of 49 @entity29624 , 14 PcommAs, and 11 AChAs. Multiple PEDs were deployed in 16 @entity1 . Rate of @entity732 was 4% (2/49) for the OA, 7.1% (1/14) for the PcommA, and 0% for the AChA. @entity1 with @entity732 did not endure new @entity51 . ICA @entity732 was not associated with the number of PEDs covering the ostia (P = .76) or the origin of ICA branches from the @entity439 (P = .24). CONCLUSION:: The incidence of major @entity432 after treatment with PEDs was low. These events were not associated with new @entity51 nor were they related to the number of PEDs deployed or the origin of ICA branches from the @entity439 . ABBREVIATIONS:: AChA, anterior choroidal arteryICA, internal carotid arteryOA, ophthalmic arteryPED, pipeline embolization devicePcommA, posterior communicating artery.
