The Pipeline Embolization Device: Changes in Practice and Reduction of Complications in the Treatment of Anterior Circulation Aneurysms in a Multicenter Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) has become an important tool for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Since FDA approval, there are ongoing efforts to increase aneurysm occlusion rates and reduce the incidence of complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess aneurysm occlusion and complication rates over time. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive anterior circulation aneurysms treated with a single PED between 2011 and 2016 at 3 academic institutions in the US was performed. Factors contributing to changes in aneurysm occlusion and complication rates over time were identified and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 284 procedures were performed on 321 anterior circulation aneurysms in 284 patients. At a median follow-up of 13 mo (mean 18 mo), complete or near complete occlusion (>90%) was achieved in 85.9% of aneurysms. There was no significant change in aneurysm occlusion rate or procedure length over time. Thromboembolic complication occurred in 8.1% of procedures, and there was a trend toward decreased incidence from 16.3% in 2011/2012 to 3.3% in 2016 (P = .14). Hemorrhagic complications significantly decreased from 8.2% in 2011/2012 to 0 to 1.0% in 2014-2016 (P = .1). CONCLUSION: We report a notable drop in the rate of hemorrhagic and to a lesser extent thromboembolic complications with increased experience with PED in a multicenter cohort. Multiple factors are believed to contribute to this drop, including the evolved interpretation of platelet function testing, the switching of clopidogrel nonresponders to ticagrelor, and the reduced use of adjunctive coiling.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".