Flow Diversion for Small Branches and Distal Aneurysms of the Posterior Circulation: A Subanalysis of the Post‐FD Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Flow diversion (FD) has emerged as an effective treatment option for intracranial aneurysms. However, there is limited evidence regarding its safety and efficacy specifically for distal and small‐artery aneurysms of the posterior circulation. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of FD for aneurysms arising from the posterior inferior cerebellar artery, anterior inferior cerebellar artery, superior cerebellar artery, and the P2 and P3 segments of the posterior cerebral artery. Methods This is a subanalysis of the Post‐FD (Posterior Circulation Aneurysms Treated With Flow Diversion) registry, highlighting distal aneurysms in the posterior inferior cerebellar artery, anterior inferior cerebellar artery, superior cerebellar artery, and the P2 and P3 segments of the posterior cerebral artery treated with FD. Aneurysm characteristics and patient outcomes were described for the total series, and a more focused analysis comparing fusiform/dissecting versus saccular aneurysms was performed. The primary treatment outcome was complete aneurysm occlusion (Raymond–Roy class 1). Primary safety outcome was major ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke following FD. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome, aneurysm retreatment, and in‐stent stenosis. Results Overall, 36 patients with 36 aneurysms were treated with FD, with a median age of 60.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 52.8—65.3 years). Of those, 13 were fusiform/dissecting, while 23 were saccular aneurysms. Complete occlusion was achieved in 78.1% for all aneurysms at a median follow‐up of 14.0 months (IQR, 9.3–48.6 months). There was a nonsignificant trend in rates of complete occlusion between fusiform/dissecting (91.7%) and saccular aneurysms (70%; P = 0.151). Major stroke was reported in 2 cases (5.6%) and in‐stent stenosis in 4 (11.1%), and retreatment was required for 4 aneurysms (11.4%) There was no difference in rates of major stroke, in‐stent stenosis, or retreatment between fusiform/dissecting and saccular aneurysms. Conclusion This study suggests the safety and feasibility of FD for distal aneurysms of the posterior circulation, particularly fusiform/dissecting aneurysms. Further larger‐scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".