Comparison of Pipeline embolization device versus Tubridge embolization device in unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a multicenter, propensity score matched study

Abstract

BackgroundFlow diverter devices (FDs) are increasingly used for treating unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), but limited studies compared different FDs.ObjectiveTo conduct a propensity score matched analysis comparing the Pipeline embolization device (PED) and Tubridge embolization device (TED) for UIAs.MethodsPatients with UIAs treated with either PED or TED between July 2016 and July 2022 were included. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, drinking, aneurysm size, morphology, neck, location, parent artery diameter, adjunctive coiling, and angiographic follow-up duration. Perioperative complications and clinical and angiographic outcomes were compared after matching.Results735 patients treated by PED and 290 patients treated by TED were enrolled. Compared with the PED group, patients in the TED group had a greater number of women and patients with ischemia, a smaller proportion of vertebrobasilar and non-saccular aneurysms, a smaller size and neck, and fewer adjunctive coils and overlapping stents, but a larger parent artery diameter and lumen disparities. After adjusting for these differences, 275 pairs were matched. No differences were found in perioperative complications (4.4% vs 2.5%, P=0.350), in-stent stenosis (16.0% vs 15.6%, P>0.999), or favorable prognosis (98.9% vs 98.5%, P>0.999). However, PED showed a trend towards better complete occlusion over a median 8-month angiographic follow-up (81.8% vs 75.3%, P=0.077).ConclusionCompared with PED, TED provides a comparable rate of perioperative and short-term outcomes. Nevertheless, a better occlusion status in the PED group needs to be further verified over a longer follow-up period.