Intra-cranial aneurysm treatment with contour or WEB - a single center comparison of intervention times and learning curves.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treating aneurysms with intra-saccular flow disruption is a feasible alternative to coil-embolization. Besides the established WEB device, the novel Contour Neurovascular System has emerged as a potentially easier alternative regarding sizing and deployment. We report the learning curve experienced at our center from the first 48 patients treated with Contour and compared it with 48 consecutive WEB cases. METHODS: Both groups were compared concerning intervention time, sizing failures leading to device changes and radiation dose. Additionally, we analyzed potential learning effects by comparing the first 24 Contour cases with our last 24 Contour cases and WEB cases respectively. RESULTS: Patient demographics, acute vs. incidental cases and aneurysm localization were comparable in both groups. The deployment time was faster in our 48 Contour cases (median: 22.0 ± 17.0 min), than in the WEB group (median: 27.5 ± 24.0 min). Total intervention time was similar for Contour (median: 68.0 ± 46.9 min) and WEB cases (median: 69.0 ± 38.0 min). Device implantation times in our WEB cases were slightly shorter in the later cases (median: 25.5 ± 24.1 min) than in the earlier (median: 28.0 ± 24.4 min) cases. In the Contour cohort, deployment times were similar for the first 24 cases (median: 22.0 ± 14.5 min) and the final 24 (median: 22.0 ± 19.4 min). Radiation dose was lower in the Contour group (1469.0 ± 1718 mGy*cm2 vs. 1788.0 ± 1506 mGy*cm2 using the WEB device). Less intra-procedural device changes were performed in the Contour cohort (6 of 48 cases, 12.5%), than in the WEB group (8 of 48 cases, 16.7%). CONCLUSION: Aneurysm occlusion times and consequently radiation doses, as well as the amount of device changes were lower in the Contour group. Occlusion times did not differ in the first and last 24 Contour cases, leading to the assumption that the handling of Contour does not require extended training. A short training effect in occlusion times was noted, however, between the first and last WEB cases as shorter procedure times were seen in the latter cases.

Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms.

The novel Contour device is an intrasaccular flow disruption device designed for treatment of intracranial wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms. Outside its original purpose, Contour implantation can be used to treat aneurysms with a higher dome-to-neck ratio which would be suitable for conventional unassisted coil embolization. We compared both techniques in a retrospective single-center analysis. A total of 42 aneurysms from 42 patients with a dome-to-neck ratio of 1.6 or higher were included in this study. Data on technical success, implantation times, radiation dosages, procedural complications, reinterventions and recurrences were gathered and compared. Technical success was achieved in all cases with both techniques. Aneurysm embolization was achieved significantly faster in the Contour group compared to coiling (Overall p = 0.0002; r = 0.580; acute setting: p = 0.005, r = 0.531; elective setting: p = 0.002, r = 0.607). Significantly less radiation dosage was applied in the Contour group (Overall p = 0.002; r = 0.478; acute group p = 0.006; r = 0.552; elective group p = 0.045; r = 0.397). The number of complications was higher in the coiling group compared to the Contour group (Coiling 7/21 (33,3%); Contour 3/21 (14.3%). There was a higher rate of reinterventions in the coiling group (7.6% vs 21.4%). Outside its original intention, the Contour device seems to be a safe and fast alternative to coil embolization for the treatment of narrow-neck-aneurysms.

Contour device implantation for treatment of intracranial aneurysms in the basilar tip.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of basilar apex aneurysms will remain challenging regarding the nobility of the parent vessel and their often wide-necked configuration. With endovascular techniques being the treatment approach of choice, novel intrasaccular flow-disruption devices constitute an endovascular embolization option. In this research, we report our experiences in embolizing basilar tip aneurysms with the novel Contour device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of eight patients after Contour implantation into a basilar apex aneurysm. Periprocedural data on intervention times, radiation dose, procedural success and complications were gathered. All patients received follow-up digital subtraction angiography after six months. Further follow-up examination results were analysed given their availability. RESULTS: Contour implantation was successful in all patients. The mean device instrumentation time was 18.8 ± 7.7 min with a mean full intervention time of 100 ± 65.8 min. The mean full procedure radiation dose was 1917 (421-5107) cGy/cm2. After six months, six aneurysms were occluded (Raymond Roy Scale (RRS) 1/2), one showed perfusion inside the device (RRS 3a) and one patient had undergone reintervention due to progression. The aneurysm with constant perfusion at six months was seen to be occluded after 24 months. CONCLUSION: Contour device implantation is a promising feasible alternative endovascular method for embolization of intracranial aneurysms located in the basilar tip with short intervention times and low radiation dosages. Short- and medium-term follow-ups show promising results concerning aneurysm occlusion and reinterventions, however further research is needed to show long-term stability.

Clinical Evaluation of Non-Contrast-Enhanced Radial Quiescent-Interval Slice-Selective (QISS) Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Comparison to Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Angiography for the Evaluation of Endoleaks after Abdominal Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced (CE) angiographic techniques, such as computed tomographic angiography (CE-CTA), are most commonly used for follow-up imaging after endovascular aneurysm repair. In this study, CE-CTA and non-CE QISS-MRA were compared for the first time for assessing endoleaks and aneurysms at follow-up after abdominal EVAR. METHODS: Our study included 20 patients (17 male, median age 79.8 years) who underwent radial QISS-MRA and CE-CTA after EVAR at their first follow-up examination. Two interventional radiologists evaluated datasets from both techniques in each patient concerning presence of endoleaks, types of endoleaks, aneurysm diameter, and image quality. Interobserver and intermodal agreement were assessed with Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: Image quality was rated as excellent or good for both modalities by both observers. Ferromagnetic embolization materials cause hyperdense artifacts in CE-CTA causing aneurysm sac diameter measurements to be inaccurate by up to 1 cm. Type 2 endoleaks with low-flow characteristics in CE-CTA were overlooked compared to radial QISS-MRA. Compared to CE-CTA, all endoleaks after abdominal EVAR were detected and classified correctly on QISS-MRA. The interobserver agreement between CE-CTA and QISS-MRA was almost perfect, except for type 2 endoleaks, where agreement was substantial. Intermodal aneurysm diameter correlate "very strongly" for both observers. CONCLUSIONS: Radial QISS-MRA is a contrast agent free technique for diagnosing and monitoring all types of endoleaks and aneurysms in patients after abdominal EVAR. It provides information about specific clinical questions concerning aneurysm diameter and presence and types of endoleaks without radiation exposure and the side effects associated with iodine-based contrast agents.