Pipeline Embolization Device and Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study Publisher Pubmed



Rashidi F¹ ; Habibi MA² ; Reyhani M³ ; Fallahi MS¹ ; Arshadi MR¹ ; Sabahi M⁴ ; Vakharia K⁵ ; Rahimi SY⁶ Show Affiliations
Source: World Neurosurgery Published:2024

Abstract

Background: When it comes to intracranial aneurysms, the quest for more effective treatments is ongoing. Flow diversion represents a growing advancement in this field. This review seeks to compare 2 variants of the endovascular flow diversion method: the Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device (FRED) and the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED). Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, using appropriate terms to compare PED and FRED in double-arm studies from conception until October 8th, 2023. Results: The meta-analysis encompassed 1769 patients, with a predominance of females (75.5%), among whom 973 patients underwent FRED procedures, while 651 received PED interventions. At 6 months, complete occlusion rates were 0.62 for FRED and 0.68 for PED (P = 0.68). At 1 year and the last follow-up, no significant differences were observed between FRED and PED, respectively. Adequate occlusion rates were similar between FRED and PED (0.82 vs. 0.79, P = 0.68). FRED showed a statistically significant higher rate of good mRS scores at follow-up (1.00 vs. 0.97, P = 0.03). Hemorrhage and re-treatment rates were higher in PED (P < 0.01) without considering the rupture status of the aneurysms due to the lack of data. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests comparable efficacy but different safety profiles between FRED and PED in treating intracranial aneurysms. FRED demonstrated a higher rate of good modified Rankin scores, while PED showed increased hemorrhage and re-treatment rates. Understanding these differences is crucial for informed decision-making in clinical practice. © 2024 Elsevier Inc.