Comparison of pipeline embolization device, flow re-direction endoluminal device and surpass flow diverters in the treatment of intracerebral aneurysms

Abstract

Objectives The use of flow diversion for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms has gained broad acceptance. Three flow-diverting stents are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States. We sought to compare the outcomes and safety profiles between the three devices at our institution. Methods A retrospective review of aneurysms treated with pipeline embolization device (PED), flow re-direction endoluminal device (FRED), and SURPASS was performed for aneurysms treated between 2018 and 2022 at our institution. Results The study cohort consisted of 142 patients. Precisely, 86 aneurysms were treated with a pipeline, 33 aneurysms were treated with FRED, and 23 aneurysms were treated with SURPASS. The 1-year complete occlusion rates were 59.4%, 60%, and 65%, respectively (0.91). Linear regression models found that only adjunctive coiling predicted aneurysm occlusion at 6 months ( p = 0.02), but this effect was lost at 1 year and beyond. There was no significant difference in acute thrombotic or acute hemorrhagic complications between the three cohorts. There was a higher rate of delayed hemorrhagic complications in the SURPASS cohort (10%) compared to the PED (1.3%) and FRED (0%) cohorts ( p = 0.04). There was also a higher rate of in-stent stenosis in the SURPASS cohort (20%) compared to the PED (5%) and FRED (3.1%) cohorts ( p < 0.01). Conclusions Treatment with PED, FRED, and SURPASS all resulted in similar complete occlusion rates at 6 months and 1 year. SURPASS was associated with higher in-stent stenosis as well as delayed hemorrhagic complications. Additional future studies evaluating the newest generation of flow-diverting stents with long-term follow-up will be necessary to make any definitive conclusions.