The Pipeline embolization device (PED) is widely used for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, including in off-label applications. In this work, the authors compared the real-world efficacy and safety of PED use in on-label and off-label aneurysm treatments.
Clinical and angiographic data of patients who underwent PED placement at a high-volume academic medical center were retrospectively obtained. Treatments were classified as on-label if they fell within the applications approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration as of 2021. Recorded outcomes included aneurysm occlusion, procedural complications, ischemic events, in-stent stenosis, intracranial hemorrhage, postprocedural functional status, and death.
In total, 416 aneurysms in 330 patients were treated with PED, comprising 256 aneurysms that received on-label treatments and 160 that received off-label treatments. The overall rate of complete aneurysm occlusion was 76.4% for on-label aneurysms and 75.6% for off-label aneurysms (p = 0.898). The risk of ischemic stroke in patients who underwent off-label treatments was 15.2%, which was higher than the 4.2% rate in patients who underwent on-label treatment (p = 0.003). All other clinical complications, procedural complications, and long-term functional status were comparable between the on-label and off-label groups.
In real-world practice, off-label use of PED is common and can achieve similar efficacy as on-label use. However, in aggregate, off-label use was found to carry an increased rate of ischemic complications. With judicious attention to safety and individual patient characteristics, these results highlight the scale and general feasibility of off-label PED use by experts.
FDA = United States Food and Drug Administration; ICA = internal carotid artery; IQR = interquartile range; mRS = modified Rankin Scale; PED = Pipeline embolization device; PREMIER = Prospective Study on Embolization of Intracranial Aneurysms With the Pipeline Embolization Device; PRU = platelet reactivity unit; PUFS = Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms.
Correspondence Akash P. Kansagra: Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. firstname.lastname@example.org.
INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online January 28, 2022; DOI: 10.3171/2021.11.JNS212481.
Disclosures Dr. Osbun is a consultant for Medtronic, Terumo, and MicroVention. Dr. Moran is a consultant for Medtronic and Cerenovus. Dr. Kansagra is a consultant for MicroVention, Penumbra, and iSchemaView.
US Food & Drug Administration. Premarket approval, Pipeline Flex embolization device. US Department of Health & Human Services.Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P100018S015)| false
HanelRA, KallmesDF, LopesDK, Prospective study on embolization of intracranial aneurysms with the pipeline device: the PREMIER study 1 year results. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(1):62–66.3130819710.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015091)| false
US Food & Drug Administration. Label change, Premarket approval, Pipeline Flex embolization device. US Department of Health & Human Services.Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P100018S015)| false
ZammarSG, BuellTJ, ChenCJ, Outcomes after off-label use of the Pipeline embolization device for intracranial aneurysms: a multicenter cohort study. World Neurosurg. 2018;115:e200–e205.2967978210.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.012)| false
GriessenauerCJ, OgilvyCS, ForemanPM, Pipeline Embolization Device for small intracranial aneurysms: evaluation of safety and efficacy in a multicenter cohort. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(4):579–587.10.1227/NEU.0000000000001377)| false
KoleMJ, MillerTR, CannarsaG, et al.Pipeline embolization device diameter is an important factor determining the efficacy of flow diversion treatment of small intracranial saccular aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg. 2019;11(10):1004–1008.
KoleMJ, MillerTR, CannarsaG, Pipeline embolization device diameter is an important factor determining the efficacy of flow diversion treatment of small intracranial saccular aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg. 2019;11(10):1004–1008.3092668710.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014792)| false
LinN, LanzinoG, LopesDK, Treatment of distal anterior circulation aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: a US multicenter experience. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(1):14–22.2657996710.1227/NEU.0000000000001117)| false
CagnazzoF, MantillaD, LefevrePH, DargazanliC, GascouG, CostalatV. Treatment of middle cerebral artery aneurysms with flow-diverter stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(12):2289–2294.
O’kellyCJ, KringsT, FiorellaD, MarottaTR. A novel grading scale for the angiographic assessment of intracranial aneurysms treated using flow diverting stents. Interv Neuroradiol. 2010;16(2):133–137.2064288710.1177/159101991001600204)| false
KallmesDF, HanelR, LopesD, International retrospective study of the Pipeline Embolization Device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(1):108–115.2535581410.3174/ajnr.A4111)| false