简介：AbstractBackground:The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the risk factors of periprocedural ischemic stroke associated with endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms using a real-world database.Methods:From August 2016 to March 2017, 167 patients were enrolled. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to examine the risk factors for periprocedural ischemic stroke.Results:Among the 167 cases, periprocedural ischemic stroke occurred in 20 cases (11.98%). After univariate analysis, the ischemic group had a higher proportion of large (≥ 10 mm) aneurysms than the control group (45.0% vs. 23.1%, p= 0.036). The incidence of periprocedural ischemic stroke was higher in cases treated by flow diverter (21.6%) or stent-assisted coiling (11.8%) than in cases treated by coiling only (2.7%), and the differences were statistically significant (p = 0.043). After multivariate logistic regression analysis, treatment modality was the independent risk factor for periprocedural ischemic stroke. Compared with the coiling-only procedure, flow diverter therapy was associated with a significantly higher rate of periprocedural ischemic stroke (OR 9.931; 95% CI 1.174-84.038; p = 0.035).Conclusions:Aneurysm size and treatment modality were associated with periprocedural ischemic stroke. Larger aneurysms were associated with increased risk of periprocedural ischemic stroke. Flow diverter therapy was associated with significantly more periprocedural ischemic stroke than the coiling procedure alone.

简介：AbstractBackground:We compared the treatment of small unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) with flow diverter and LVIS-assisted coiling to determine the effects of hemodynamic changes caused by different stent and coil packing in endovascular treatment.Methods:Fifty-one UIAs in 51 patients treated with pipeline embolization device (PED) were included in this study and defined as the PED group. We matched controls 1:1 and enrolled 51 UIAs who were treated with LVIS stent, which were defined as the LVIS group. Computational fluid dynamics were performed to assess hemodynamic alterations between PED and LVIS. Clinical analysis was also performed between these two groups after the match.Results:There was no difference in procedural complications between the two groups (P = 0.558). At the first angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate was significantly higher in the LVIS group compared with that in the PED group (98.0% vs. 82.4%, P = 0.027). However, during the further angiographic follow-up, the complete occlusion rate in the PED group achieved 100%, which was higher than that in the LVIS group (98.0%). Compared with the LVIS group after treatment, cases in the PED group showed a higher value of velocity in the aneurysm (0.03 ± 0.09 vs. 0.01 ± 0.01, P = 0.037) and WSS on the aneurysm (2.32 ± 5.40 vs. 0.33 ± 0.47, P = 0.011). Consequently, the reduction ratios of these two parameters also showed statistical differences. These parameters in the LVIS group showed much higher reduction ratios. However, the reduction ratio of the velocity on the neck plane was comparable between two groups.Conclusions:Both LVIS and PED were safe and effective for the treatment of small UIAs. However, LVIS-assisted coiling produced greater hemodynamic alterations in the aneurysm sac compared with PED. The hemodynamics in the aneurysm neck may be a key factor for aneurysm outcome.