A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Fourth-generation Pipeline Vantage flow diversion: First reported US experience of safety and feasibility. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The Pipeline Vantage embolization device (Medtronic, Irvine, CA) is the fourth generation of Pipeline flow diverter devices, offering numerous technical improvements. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of The Pipeline Vantage embolization device (Medtronic, Irvine, CA).

Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study describing the use of The Pipeline Vantage embolization device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Technical feasibility and safety were assessed in terms of intra and postprocedural complications, as well as neurological morbidity upon follow-up. Both ruptured and unruptured aneurysms were included.

Results: We included 12 patients in our study (mean age 62; females:  = 9/12, 75%). Aneurysm morphology varied between saccular (41.6%), fusiform (41.6%), blister (8.3%), and pseudoaneurysm (8.3%). Three cases (25%) involved ruptured aneurysms treated in the acute setting. A transradial access was used in 10 cases (83.3%). There was a 100% success in deployment. Seven cases (58.3%) were treated with adjunct embolization device other than a flow diversion. Eight cases (66.6%) were treated with a single flow diversion, three cases (25%) were treated with two flow diversion, and one case (8.3%) was treated with three flow diversion stents. There were no intraoperative complications. There was one postprocedural complication in a dissecting ruptured PICA aneurysm that was ultimately treated with two flow diversion stents and an intrasaccular device.

Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first US series assessing the periprocedural safety and feasibility of consecutive patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with the Pipeline Vantage device (Medtronic, Irvine, CA).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618843PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15910199241301119DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

flow diversion
24
pipeline vantage
20
embolization device
16
vantage embolization
12
device medtronic
12
medtronic irvine
12
safety feasibility
8
feasibility safety
8
intracranial aneurysms
8
three cases
8

Similar Publications