Safety and Efficacy of the Pipeline Embolization Device Use in the Outside Circle of Willis Located Intracranial Aneurysms: A Single-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat aneurysms located between the petrous and superior hypophyseal segments of the internal carotid artery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of treating aneurysms outside the FDA approved anatomical locations. Furthermore, we analyze the safety of our antiplatelet protocol. METHODS: Data on all patients treated with PED at our center from March 2015 to December 2017 were reviewed. Only patients with aneurysms treated with PED as off label use were included. Procedural complications and long-term functional outcome measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) were recorded. Tirofiban maintenance infusion was administered intravenously after PED deployment. None of the patients had platelet function testing. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients harboring 36 aneurysms were included in the study. Mean age was 58.2 years ±14.6. Nineteen were women (52.8%) and most aneurysms were unruptured (80.6%). There were no intraoperative complications. Five patients experienced postoperative complications - 4 ischemic strokes and one groin hematoma. None led to any significant disability at follow-up. Thirty-one patients (86.1%) achieved an mRS of 0-2 at follow-up. A Raymond-Roy classification of 1 was achieved in 78.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: The use of PED to treat aneurysms located outside the circle of Willis is feasible and effective. Our novel antiplatelet protocol did not require platelet function assay testing and did not lead to a higher rate of thrombo-embolic events compared to what has been previously reported.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".