Intracranial aneurysm treatment with intrasaccular flow disruption: comparison of WEB-21 and WEB-17 systems

Abstract

BackgroundNew generations of Woven EndoBridge (WEB) devices (WEB-21 and WEB-17) are available to treat aneurysms with a width <6.5 mm. Limited comparisons between both systems exist in the literature, but mid-term efficacy has not been compared. Our study aimed to compare the indications, feasibility, and safety of both systems and to evaluate their efficacy at mid-term follow-up (12 months).MethodsAneurysms treated with WEB-21 and WEB-17 were extracted from a prospective database. Patient and aneurysm characteristics, complications, and anatomical results were analyzed by an interventional neuroradiologist, independent of the procedures.ResultsFrom June 2015 to November 2019, 87 patients with 92 aneurysms were treated with WEB-21 (38/92, 41.3%) and WEB-17 (54/92, 58.7%). WEB-21 and WEB-17 had high treatment feasibility (97.4% and 94.4%, respectively). A higher percentage of ruptured aneurysms were treated with WEB-17 (9.3%) than with WEB-21 (2.6%; p=0.03). Morbidity and mortality at 1 month were similar in both groups (no morbidity in either group, and mortality 2.7% in the WEB-21 group and 2.0% in the WEB-17 group). The rate of complete and adequate aneurysm occlusion was not significantly higher with the WEB-17 system (59.2% and 95.9%, respectively) compared with the WEB-21 (52.9% and 85.3%, respectively).ConclusionsThis study showed the high feasibility of aneurysm treatment with both the WEB-21 and WEB-17 systems. Indications were relatively similar with both devices except for ruptured aneurysms, which were more frequently treated with the WEB-17 device. Efficacy at 12 months (complete and adequate occlusions) was slightly, but not significantly, better with the WEB-17 device.