Both endovascular coiling and the Pipeline embolization device (PED) have been shown to be safe and clinically effective for treatment of small (< 10 mm) aneurysms. The authors conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis to compare the utility of these treatment methods in terms of health benefits.
A decision-analytical study was performed with Markov modeling methods to simulate patients with small unruptured aneurysms undergoing endovascular coiling, stent-assisted coiling (SAC), or PED placement for treatment. Input probabilities were derived from prior literature, and 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model and input parameter uncertainty.
The base case calculation for a 50-year-old man reveals PED to have a higher health benefit (17.48 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) than coiling (17.44 QALYs) or SAC (17.36 QALYs). PED is the better option in 6020 of the 10,000 iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. When the retreatment rate of PED is lower than 9.53%, and the coiling retreatment is higher than 15.6%, PED is the better strategy. In the 2-way sensitivity analysis varying the retreatment rates from both treatment modalities, when the retreatment rate of PED is approximately 14% lower than the retreatment rate of coiling, PED is the more favorable treatment strategy. Otherwise, coiling is more effective. SAC may be better than PED when the unfavorable outcome risk of SAC is lower than 70% of its reported current value.
With the increasing use of PEDs for treatment of small unruptured aneurysms, the current study indicates that these devices may have higher health benefits due to lower rates of retreatment compared to both simple coiling and stent-assisted techniques. Longer follow-up studies are needed to document the rates of recurrence and retreatment after coiling and PED to assess the cost-effectiveness of these strategies.
ABBREVIATIONSIntrePED = International Retrospective Study of Pipeline Embolization Device; mRS = modified Rankin Scale; PED = Pipeline embolization device; QALYs = quality-adjusted life years; SAC = stent-assisted coiling; UIA = unruptured intracranial aneurysm.
BecskeTBrinjikjiWPottsMBKallmesDFShapiroMMoranCJ: Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms trial. Neurosurgery80:40–482017
BrinjikjiWKallmesDFCloftHJLanzinoG: Age-related outcomes following intracranial aneurysm treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device: a subgroup analysis of the IntrePED registry. J Neurosurg124:1726–17302016
HettsSWTurkAEnglishJDDowdCFMoccoJPrestigiacomoC: Stent-assisted coiling versus coiling alone in unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the Matrix and Platinum Science Trial: safety, efficacy, and mid-term outcomes. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol35:698–7052014
KallmesDFBrinjikjiWCekirgeSFiorellaDHanelRAJabbourP: Safety and efficacy of the Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of 3 large studies. J Neurosurg127:775–7802017
LeEJMillerTSerulleYShivashankarRJindalGGandhiD: Use of Pipeline Flex is associated with reduced fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and technical failure compared with the first-generation Pipeline embolization device. J Neurointerv Surg[epub ahead of print] 2016
LeclerARaymondJRodriguez-RégentCAl ShareefFTrystramDGodon-HardyS: Intracranial aneurysms: recurrences more than 10 years after endovascular treatment—a prospective cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Radiology277:173–1802015
LinfanteIMayichMSonigAFujimotoJSiddiquiADabusG: Flow diversion with Pipeline Embolic Device as treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage secondary to blister aneurysms: dual-center experience and review of the literature. J Neurointerv Surg9:29–332017
Martínez-GaldámezMLaminSMLagiosKGLiebigTCiceriEFChapotR: Periprocedural outcomes and early safety with the use of the Pipeline Flex Embolization Device with Shield Technology for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: preliminary results from a prospective clinical study. J Neurointerv Surg9:772–7762017
NaggaraONLeclerAOppenheimCMederJFRaymondJ: Endovascular treatment of intracranial unruptured aneurysms: a systematic review of the literature on safety with emphasis on subgroup analyses. Radiology263:828–8352012
NishidoHPiotinMBartoliniBPistocchiSRedjemHBlancR: Analysis of complications and recurrences of aneurysm coiling with special emphasis on the stent-assisted technique. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol35:339–3442014
PetrOBrinjikjiWCloftHKallmesDFLanzinoG: Current trends and results of endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms at a single institution in the flow-diverter era. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol37:1106–11132016
SaatciIYavuzKOzerCGeyikSCekirgeHS: Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the pipeline flow-diverter embolization device: a single-center experience with long-term follow-up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol33:1436–14462012
WaliARParkCCSantiago-DieppaDRVaidaFMurphyJDKhalessiAA: Pipeline embolization device versus coiling for the treatment of large and giant unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Neurosurg Focus42(6):E62017