Effect of structural remodeling (retraction and recoil) of the pipeline embolization device on aneurysm occlusion rate.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device, an oversized device is often selected to achieve better wall apposition; however, this device oversizing could be related to overelongation and possible delayed enlargement of the stented region. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between oversize and treatment outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DynaCT images of 14 aneurysms treated by a single Pipeline Embolization Device were retrospectively analyzed. 3D images of the deployed device were compared with those acquired at the 6-month follow-up for qualitative and quantitative evaluation. The diameter and length of the Pipeline Embolization Device were measured at both time points and compared for determination of the device changes. RESULTS: Structural changes of the device have been observed, and it was found that the Pipeline Embolization Device influences the vessel curvature in some cases. On average, it increases its diameter by 0.23 mm and decreases its length by 2.88 mm within 6 months of initial deployment. Excessive elongation beyond its nominal length is correlated with a lower aneurysm occlusion rate at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Not only does a Pipeline Embolization Device reconstruct the aneurysm and parent artery, but its entire structure goes through a gradual remodeling process. The relative deformation between the device and the artery indicates suboptimal wall apposition. Device oversizing does not have a direct effect on shortening or recoil. The aneurysm occlusion rate, however, is lowered by overelongation of the Pipeline Embolization Device.

Myocardial injury in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage treated with recombinant factor VIIa.

We report myocardial injury in 20 recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) treated and 110 nontreated patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Patients were treated or received standard medical management. All received EKG and cardiac enzyme testing. Elevated troponin occurred in 20% treated vs 3% nontreated (p = 0.02). Myocardial infarction occurred in 10% vs 1% (p = 0.01). We found a significant increase in myocardial injury in rFVIIa treated patients.

Intra-arterial reteplase compared to urokinase for thrombolytic recanalization in acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reteplase (RP) and urokinase (UK) are being used "off-label" to treat acute ischemic stroke. The safety and efficacy of intra-arterial RP or UK in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, however, has yet to be proved. We aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RP compared with UK in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted of cases from a prospectively collected stroke data base on consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion by digital subtraction angiography treated with intra-arterial RP or UK. Thrombolytic dosage, recanalization rate, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), mortality, and outcome were determined. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients received RP and 22 received UK (mean doses, 2.5 +/- 1.4 mg and 690,000 +/- 562,000 U, respectively). Vascular occlusions included 9 basilar arteries (BAs), 7 internal carotid arteries (ICAs), and 17 middle cerebral arteries (MCAs) with RP and 9 BAs, 4 ICAs, and 9 MCAs with UK. Median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scales were as follows: 16 (range, 5-25; 81% > or = 10) with RP and 17 (range, 6-38; 85% > or =10) with UK. Mean time from symptom onset to thrombolytic initiation: 333 +/- 230 minutes with RP and 343 +/- 169 minutes with UK. Recanalization rates were as follows: 82% with RP and 64% with UK (P = .13). Symptomatic ICH rates were as follows: 12% with RP and 4.5% with UK (P = .50). The mortality rate was 24% with RP and 27% with UK (P = .8). CONCLUSION: Although limited in statistical power, our study suggests that, although IA thrombolysis with RP shows a trend for higher recanalization rates and hemorrhage rates, IA thrombolysis with RP is not significantly different in recanalization, outcome, mortality, and ICH compared with that of UK or rates reported with IA pro-UK.