The second-generation eCLIPs Endovascular Clip System: initial experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Treatment of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms is associated with higher recanalization and complication rates; however, the most commonly used methods are not specifically designed to work in bifurcation lesions. To address these issues, the authors describe the evolution in the design and use of the eCLIPs (Endovascular Clip System) device, a novel hybrid stent-like assist device with flow diverter properties that was first described in 2008. METHODS A registry was established covering 13 international centers at which patients were treated with the second-generation eCLIPs device. Aneurysm morphology and rupture status, device neck coverage, coil retention, and procedural and late morbidity and mortality were recorded. For those patients who had undergone successful implantation more than 6 months earlier, the final imaging and clinical follow-up results and need for re-treatment were recorded. RESULTS Thirty-three patients were treated between June 2013 and September 2015. Twenty-five (76%) patients had successful placement of an eCLIPs device; 23 (92%) of these 25 patients had complete data. Eight cases of nondeployment occurred during the 1st year of use, consistent with a learning curve; no failures of deployment occurred thereafter. Two periprocedural transient ischemic attacks and 2 asymptomatic thrombotic events occurred. Twenty-one (91%) of 23 patients underwent follow-up at an average of 8 months (range 3-18 months); 9 (42.9%) of these 21 patients demonstrated an improvement in Raymond grade at follow-up; no cases of worsening Raymond grade were recorded, and 17 (81.0%) patients sustained a modified Raymond-Roy Classification class of I or II angiographic result at follow-up. Two delayed ruptures were recorded, both in previously coiled, symptomatic giant aneurysms where the device was used as a part of a salvage strategy. CONCLUSIONS The second-generation eCLIPs device is a viable treatment option for bifurcation aneurysms. The aneurysm occlusion rates in this initial clinical series are comparable to the initial experience with other bifurcation support devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".