Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Aditya Srivatsan x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Kathryn M. Wagner, Visish M. Srinivasan, Aditya Srivatsan, Michael G. Z. Ghali, Ajith J. Thomas, Alejandro Enriquez-Marulanda, Abdulrahman Y. Alturki, Christopher S. Ogilvy, Maxim Mokin, Anna L. Kuhn, Ajit Puri, Ramesh Grandhi, Stephen Chen, Jeremiah Johnson and Peter Kan

OBJECTIVE

With the increasing use of flow diversion as treatment for intracranial aneurysms, there is a concomitant increased vigilance in monitoring complications. The low porosity of flow diverters is concerning when the origins of vessels are covered, whether large circle of Willis branches or critical perforators. In this study, the authors report their experience with flow diverter coverage of the lenticulostriate vessels and evaluate their safety and outcomes.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 5 institutional databases of all flow diversion cases from August 2012 to June 2018. Information regarding patient presentation, aneurysm location, treatment, and outcomes were recorded. Patients who were treated with flow diverters placed in the proximal middle cerebral artery (MCA), proximal anterior cerebral artery, or distal internal carotid artery leading to coverage of the medial and lateral lenticulostriate vessels were included. Clinical outcomes according to the modified Rankin Scale were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to establish risk factors for lenticulostriate infarct.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included in the analysis. Postprocedure cross-sectional images were available in 30 patients. Two patients experienced transient occlusion of the MCA during the procedure; one was asymptomatic, and the other had a clinical and radiographic ipsilateral internal capsule stroke. Five patients had transient symptoms without radiographic infarct in the lenticulostriate territory. Two patients experienced in-stent thrombosis, leading to clinical MCA infarcts (one in the ipsilateral caudate) after discontinuing antiplatelet therapy. Discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy prior to 6 months was the only variable that was significantly correlated with stroke outcome (p < 0.01, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0–0.43), and this significance persisted when controlled for other risk factors, including age, smoking status, and aneurysm location.

CONCLUSIONS

The use and versatility of flow diversion is increasing, and safety data are continuing to accumulate. Here, the authors provide early data on the safety of covering lenticulostriate vessels with flow diverters. The authors concluded that the coverage of these perforators does not routinely lead to clinically significant ischemia when dual antiplatelet therapy is continued for 6 months. Further evaluation is needed in larger cohorts and with imaging follow-up as experience develops in using these devices in more distal circulation.

Restricted access

Visish M. Srinivasan, Aditya Srivatsan, Alejandro M. Spiotta, Benjamin K. Hendricks, Andrew F. Ducruet, Felipe C. Albuquerque, Ajit Puri, Matthew R. Amans, Steven W. Hetts, Daniel L. Cooke, Christopher S. Ogilvy, Ajith J. Thomas, Alejandro Enriquez-Marulanda, Ansaar Rai, SoHyun Boo, Andrew P. Carlson, R. Webster Crowley, Leonardo Rangel-Castilla, Giuseppe Lanzino, Peng Roc Chen, Orlando Diaz, Bradley N. Bohnstedt, Kyle P. O’Connor, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, Jeremiah N. Johnson, Stephen R. Chen and Peter Kan

OBJECTIVE

Traditionally, stent-assisted coiling and balloon remodeling have been the primary endovascular treatments for wide-necked intracranial aneurysms with complex morphologies. PulseRider is an aneurysm neck reconstruction device that provides parent vessel protection for aneurysm coiling. The objective of this study was to report early postmarket results with the PulseRider device.

METHODS

This study was a prospective registry of patients treated with PulseRider at 13 American neurointerventional centers following FDA approval of this device. Data collected included clinical presentation, aneurysm characteristics, treatment details, and perioperative events. Follow-up data included degree of aneurysm occlusion and delayed (> 30 days after the procedure) complications.

RESULTS

A total of 54 aneurysms were treated, with the same number of PulseRider devices, across 13 centers. Fourteen cases were in off-label locations (7 anterior communicating artery, 6 middle cerebral artery, and 1 A1 segment anterior cerebral artery aneurysms). The average dome/neck ratio was 1.2. Technical success was achieved in 52 cases (96.2%). Major complications included the following: 3 procedure-related posterior cerebral artery strokes, a device-related intraoperative aneurysm rupture, and a delayed device thrombosis. Immediately postoperative Raymond-Roy occlusion classification (RROC) class 1 was achieved in 21 cases (40.3%), class 2 in 15 (28.8%), and class 3 in 16 cases (30.7%). Additional devices were used in 3 aneurysms. For those patients with 3- or 6-month angiographic follow-up (28 patients), 18 aneurysms (64.2%) were RROC class 1 and 8 (28.5%) were RROC class 2.

CONCLUSIONS

PulseRider is being used in both on- and off-label cases following FDA approval. The clinical and radiographic outcomes are comparable in real-world experience to the outcomes observed in earlier studies. Further experience is needed with the device to determine its role in the neurointerventionalist’s armamentarium, especially with regard to its off-label use.

Restricted access

Kathryn Wagner, Aditya Srivatsan, Alina Mohanty, Visish M. Srinivasan, Yasir Saleem, Jacob Cherian, Robert F. James, Stephen Chen, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, Jeremiah Johnson and Peter Kan

OBJECTIVE

Flow diversion is increasingly used to treat a variety of intracranial aneurysms with good safety and efficacy; however, there is some evidence that this treatment is associated with a larger postoperative ischemic burden on imaging than that with other traditional endovascular modalities. These findings typically do not manifest as neurological deficits, but any subtle effects on cognition remain unknown. In this study, the authors describe the neurocognitive performance of a cohort of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) before and after treatment with flow diversion. This is the first report of cognitive outcomes following aneurysm treatment with flow diversion.

METHODS

The authors prospectively collected data on cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool in patients with UIAs who were undergoing endovascular aneurysm treatment with flow diversion between June 2017 and July 2019. Patients completed the MoCA prior to intervention, at the 1-month follow-up after treatment, and again at 6 months after the procedure. All patients with UIAs treated with flow diversion were included regardless of age, aneurysm location, or morphology, unless their functional status precluded completion of the MoCA instrument. A repeated-measures linear mixed-effects model was used to compare preintervention and postintervention cognitive status at the time intervals outlined.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients with 61 aneurysms underwent endovascular aneurysm treatment with flow diversion (mean age 52.5 years, 90.2% females). There was no difference between baseline and postprocedure MoCA scores at any time interval (p > 0.05). The MoCA scores at baseline, 1 month postprocedure, and 6 months postprocedure were 26.1, 26.2, and 26.6, respectively. There was also no difference between pre- and postprocedure scores on any individual domain of the instrument (visuospatial, naming, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation) at any time interval (p > 0.05). Thirty-four patients had follow-up MRI or CT imaging, 5 of whom showed radiographic changes or ischemia. All patients with follow-up clinical evaluation had a 6-month modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Flow diversion is increasingly used in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. This study suggests that this treatment may not alter neurocognitive function. Larger patient samples and longer follow-ups with other tests of cognitive functions are needed to confirm these findings.