Abstract 170: Flow Diversion for Distal Aneurysms of the Posterior Circulation: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Flow diversion (FD) has emerged as an effective treatment option for intracranial aneurysms (IAs). However, there is limited evidence regarding its safety and efficacy specifically for distal aneurysms of the posterior circulation including posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA), anterior inferior cerebellar artery (AICA), superior cerebellar artery (SCA), and the P2 and P3 segment of the posterior cerebral artery (PCA). This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of FD for these aneurysms. Methods A retrospective analysis of a multicentric observational registry was performed between 2014 and 2022. Patients harboring distal aneurysms of the posterior circulation including the PICA, AICA, SCA, and PCA P2‐3 treated with FD were included. Aneurysms characteristics and outcomes were calculated for the total series and a comparison was performed between fusiform/dissecting versus saccular aneurysms. The primary outcome was complete occlusion at last imaging follow up which was defined as per the Raymond Roy occlusion scale. Additional outcomes included the retreatment rate, and thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications Results Overall, 36 patients with 36 aneurysms were treated with FD with a median age in years of 60.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 52.8‐65.3 years). Of those, 13 were fusiform/dissecting while 23 were saccular IAs. Complete occlusion was achieved in 78.1% for all IAs at a median follow‐up of 14.0 months (IQR: 9.3‐48.6 months). There was no significant difference in rates of complete occlusion between fusiform/dissecting (91.7%) and saccular aneurysms (70%, p=0.151). Thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications were observed in four cases (11.1%), and retreatment was required for four IAs (11.4%). There was no significant difference in rates of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, or retreatment between fusiform/dissecting and saccular IAs Conclusion This study suggests the safety and efficacy of FD for distal aneurysms of the posterior circulation. Further larger‐scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings and to explore the long‐term safety and efficacy of FD in this specific aneurysm population.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".