Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Ajit Puri x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Visish M. Srinivasan, Andrew P. Carlson, Maxim Mokin, Jacob Cherian, Stephen R. Chen, Ajit Puri and Peter Kan

OBJECTIVE

The Pipeline embolization device (PED) is frequently used in the treatment of anterior circulation aneurysms, especially around the carotid siphon, with generally excellent results. However, the PED has its own unique technical challenges, including the occurrence of device foreshortening or migration leading to prolapse into the aneurysm. The authors sought to determine the incidence of this phenomenon, the rescue strategies, and outcomes.

METHODS

Four institutional databases of neuroendovascular procedures were reviewed for cases of intracranial aneurysms treated with PEDs. Patient and aneurysm data as well as angiographic imaging were reviewed for all cases involving device prolapse into the aneurysm.

RESULTS

A total of 413 intracranial aneurysms were treated with PEDs during the study period, by 5 neurointerventionalists. Large and giant aneurysms (≥ 2 cm) accounted for 32 of these aneurysms. Among these 32 PEDs, prolapse into the aneurysm occurred in 3 patients, with 1 of these PEDs successfully rescued and the other 2 left in situ. No patients suffered any severe complications. The 2 patients in whom the PEDs were left in situ remained on antiplatelet therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The PED may foreshorten or migrate during or after deployment, leading to prolapse into the aneurysm. This phenomenon appears to be associated with large and giant aneurysms, vessel tortuosity, short landing zones, and use of balloon angioplasty. Future study and follow-up is needed to further evaluate this phenomenon, but some of the observations and techniques described in this paper may help to prevent or salvage prolapsed devices.

Restricted access

Peter Kan, Visish M. Srinivasan, Nnenna Mbabuike, Rabih G. Tawk, Vin Shen Ban, Babu G. Welch, Maxim Mokin, Bartley D. Mitchell, Ajit Puri, Mandy J. Binning and Edward Duckworth

The Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) was approved for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms from the petrous to the superior hypophyseal segment of the internal carotid artery. However, since its approval, its use for treatment of intracranial aneurysms in other locations and non-sidewall aneurysms has grown tremendously. The authors report on a cohort of 15 patients with 16 cerebral aneurysms that incorporated an end vessel with no significant distal collaterals, which were treated with the PED. The cohort includes 7 posterior communicating artery aneurysms, 5 ophthalmic artery aneurysms, 1 superior cerebellar artery aneurysm, 1 anterior inferior cerebellar artery aneurysm, and 2 middle cerebral artery aneurysms. None of the aneurysms achieved significant occlusion at the last follow-up evaluation (mean 24 months). Based on these observations, the authors do not recommend the use of flow diverters for the treatment of this subset of cerebral aneurysms.

Restricted access

Ajit S. Puri, Rivka R. Colen, Arra S. Reddy, Michael W. Groff, Diane DiNobile, Timothy Killoran, Boris Nikolic and Ajith J. Thomas

Complications from percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) and kyphoplasty are rare and are most commonly related to cement leakage. Pseudoaneurysm of the segmental arteries has not been reported as a complication of PV in the literature. In this article, the authors describe 2 patients who presented with a lumbar pseudoaneurysm after undergoing PV at other institutions. The authors also review the optimal technique to avoid such vascular complications.

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.