Use of the Pipeline embolization device in the treatment of iatrogenic intracranial vascular injuries: a bi-institutional experience

Abstract

OBJECTIVEFlow-diverting devices have been used for the treatment of complex intracranial vascular pathology with success, but the role of these devices in treating iatrogenic intracranial vascular injuries has yet to be clearly defined. Here, the authors report their bi-institutional experience with the use of the Pipeline embolization device (PED) for the treatment of iatrogenic intracranial vascular injuries.METHODSThe authors reviewed a retrospective cohort of patients with iatrogenic injuries to the intracranial vasculature that were treated with the PED between 2012 and 2016. Data collection included demographic data, indications for treatment, number and sizes of PEDs used, and immediate and follow-up angiographic and clinical outcomes.RESULTSFour patients with a mean age of 47.5 years (range 18–63 years) underwent PED placement for iatrogenic vessel injuries. In 3 patients, the intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) was injured during transnasal tumor resection. In 1 patient, a basilar apex injury occurred during endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Three patients had a pseudoaneurysm as a result of vessel injury, and 1 patient had frank ICA laceration and extravasation. All 3 pseudoaneurysms were successfully treated with PED deployment. The ICA laceration was refractory to PED placement, and the vessel was subsequently occluded endovascularly. All 4 patients had a good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1).CONCLUSIONSThe use of the PED is feasible in the management of iatrogenic pseudoaneurysms of the intracranial vasculature. In cases of frank vessel perforation, an alternative strategy such as covered stent placement should be considered. Endovascular or surgical vessel occlusion remains the definitive treatment in cases of refractory hemorrhage.