A Multicenter Pilot Study on the Clinical Utility of Computational Modeling for Flow-Diverter Treatment Planning

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Briganti F,
   3. Delehaye L,
   4. Leone G, et al

   . Flow diverter device for the treatment of small middle cerebral artery aneurysms. J NeuroIntervent Surg 2016;8:287–94 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011460 pmid:25603808

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Bhogal P,
   3. Pérez MA,
   4. Ganslandt O, et al

   . Treatment of posterior circulation non–saccular aneurysms with flow diverters: a single-center experience and review of 56 patients. J NeuroIntervent Surg 2017;9:471–81 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012781 pmid:27836994

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Saatci I,
   3. Yavuz K,
   4. Ozer C, et al

   . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the Pipeline flow-diverter embolization device: a single-center experience with long–term follow–up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1436–46 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3246 pmid:22821921

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   U.S. Food and Drug Administration. P100018/S015, Pipeline^TM, Flex Embolization Device approval letter. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/P100018S015A.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2019.
5. 5.↵
   2. Caroff J,
   3. Tamura T,
   4. King RM, et al

   . Phosphorylcholine surface modified flow diverter associated with reduced intimal hyperplasia. J NeuroIntervent Surg 2018;10:1097–1101 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-013776 pmid:29511117

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Laurent E,
   3. Makoyeva A,
   4. Darsaut TE, et al

   . In vitro reproduction of device deformation leading to thrombotic complications and failure of flow diversion. Interv Neuroradiol 2013;19:432–37 doi:10.1177/159101991301900405

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Tsai YH,
   3. Wong HF,
   4. Hsu SW

   . Endovascular management of spontaneous delayed migration of the flow–diverter stent. J Neuroradiol 2018 Dec 1. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2018.11.004 pmid:30513289

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Al–Mufti F,
   3. Amuluru K,
   4. Cohen ER, et al

   . Rescue therapy for procedural complications associated with deployment of flow-diverting devices in cerebral aneurysms. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2018;15:624–33 doi:10.1093/ons/opy020 pmid:29584923

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Sindeev S,
   3. Prothmann S,
   4. Frolov S, et al

   . Intimal hyperplasia after aneurysm treatment by diversion. World Neurosurg 2019;122:e577–83 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.107 pmid:31108073

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Narata AP,
    3. Blasco J,
    4. Roman LS, et al

    . Early results in flow diverter sizing by computational simulation: quantification of size change and simulation error assessment. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2018;15:557–66 doi:10.1093/ons/opx288 pmid:31108073

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Kim HJ,
    3. Yoon DY,
    4. Kim ES, et al

    . Intraobserver and interobserver variability in CT angiography and MR angiography measurements of the size of cerebral aneurysms. Neuroradiology 2017;59:491–97 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1826-y pmid:28343249

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Martínez–Galdámez M,
    3. Ortega–Quintanilla J,
    4. Hermosín A, et al

    . Novel balloon application for rescue and realignment of a proximal end migrated Pipeline Flex embolization device into the aneurysmal sac: complication management. BMJ Case Rep 2016;2016 doi:10.1136/bcr-2016-012263 pmid:27009193

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Kühn AL,
    3. Rodrigues KDM,
    4. Wakhloo AK, et al

    . Endovascular techniques for achievement of better flow diverter wall apposition. Interv Neuroradiol 2019;25:344–47 doi:10.1177/1591019918815294 pmid:27009193

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Pontone G,
    3. Patel MR,
    4. Hlatky MA, et al

    . Rationale and design of the prospective longitudinal trial of FFRCT: outcome and resource impacts study. Am Heart J 2015;170:438–44 doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2015.06.002 pmid:26385026

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Brouwer J,
    3. Gheorghe L,
    4. Nijenhuis VJ, et al

    . Insight on patient specific computer modeling of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019;93:1097–1105 doi:10.1002/ccd.27990 pmid:30461187

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. K171534, Surgical Preview. clearance letter. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/K171534.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2019.
17. 17.↵
    2. Babiker H,
    3. Kalani Y,
    4. Levitt M, et al

    . Clinical validations of simulated neurovascular braided stent deployments. Ann Biomed Eng 2016;44:3719–49 doi:10.1007/s10439-016-1710-7

    CrossRef
18. 18.↵
    2. Zwarzany Ł,
    3. Poncyljusz W,
    4. Burke TH

    . Flat detector CT and its applications in the endovascular treatment of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms: a literature review. Eur J Radiol 2017;88:26–31 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.027 pmid:28189205

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Ott S,
    3. Struffert T,
    4. Saake M, et al

    . Influence of different reconstruction parameters in the visualization of intracranial stents using C-arm flat panel CT angiography: experience in an animal model. Acta Radiology 2016;57:233–40 doi:10.1177/0284185115571988 pmid:25711233

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Kizilkilic O,
    3. Kocer N,
    4. Metaxas GE, et al

    . Utility of VasoCT in the treatment of intracranial aneurysm with flow-diverter stents: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2012;117:45–49 doi:10.3171/2012.4.JNS111660 pmid:23205788, 22559846

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Clarençon F,
    3. Di Maria F,
    4. Gabrieli J, et al

    . Clinical impact of flat panel volume CT angiography in evaluating the accurate intraoperative deployment of flow-diverter stents. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1966–72 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5343 pmid:28818824

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Al–Mufti F,
    3. Cohen ER,
    4. Amuluru K, et al

    . Bailout strategies and complications associated with the use of flow-diverting stents for treating intracranial aneurysms. Interv Neuroradiol 2019;8:38–54 doi:10.1159/000489016

    CrossRef
23. 23.↵
    2. Rouchaud A,
    3. Ramana C,
    4. Brinjikji W, et al

    . Wall apposition is a key factor for aneurysm occlusion after flow diversion: a histologic evaluation in 41 rabbits. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:2087–91 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4848 pmid:27390319

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Aquarius R,
    3. de Korte A,
    4. Smits D, et al

    . The importance of wall apposition in flow diverters. Neurosurgery 2019;84:804–10 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyy092 pmid:29659995

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Ospel JM,
    3. Gascou G,
    4. Costalat V, et al

    . Comparison of Pipeline embolization device sizing based on conventional 2D measurements and virtual simulation using the Sim&Size software: an agreement study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:524–30 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5973] pmid:30733254

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    2. Karády J,
    3. Ntalas I,
    4. Prendergast B, et al

    . Transcatheter mitral valve replacement in mitral annulus calcification: the art of computer simulation. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2018;12:153–57 doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2017.12.007 pmid:29325812

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Derycke L,
    3. Perrin D,
    4. Cochennec F, et al

    . Predictive numerical simulations of double branch stent–graft deployment in an aortic arch aneurysm. Ann Biomed Eng 2019;47:1051–62 doi:10.1007/s10439-019-02215-2 pmid:30706308

    CrossRefPubMed