flow_diversion

Flow Diversion

Flow Diversion (FD) is a endovascular treatment.

The introduction of flow diverters for intracranial aneurysm treatment represents a major paradigm shift in the treatment of these lesions. The theoretical hallmark of flow diverters is the treatment of the diseased segment harboring the aneurysm instead of treating the aneurysm itself. Flow diverters are designed to induce disruption of flow near the aneurysm neck while preserving flow into parent vessel and adjacent branches. After flow diversion, intra-aneurysmal thrombosis occurs, followed by shrinkage of the aneurysmal sac as the thrombus organizes and retracts.

These stents are placed in the parent artery at the level of the aneurysm neck to disrupt the intra-aneurysmal flow thus favoring intra-aneurysmal thrombosis.

While endoluminal flow diverters function from within the parent artery by providing a scaffold for endothelial cell growth at the neck of the aneurysm and induction of intra-aneurysmal thrombosis 1) endosaccular devices mimic the endoluminal devices but within the aneurysmal sac itself. 2).


The mechanism of action that results in aneurysm exclusion from the circulation initially involves flow redirection with the subsequent development of a neointimal covering on the surface of the FDS that reconstructs the parent vessel and excludes the aneurysm from the circulation 3).

They take advantage of altering hemodynamics at the aneurysm/parent vessel interface, resulting in gradual thrombosis of the aneurysm occurring over time. Subsequent inflammatory response, healing, and endothelial growth shrink the aneurysm and reconstruct the parent artery lumen while preserving perforators and side branches in most cases. Flow diverters have already allowed treatment of previously untreatable wide necked aneurysm and giant aneurysms.

The emerging strategy of maximum FD compaction can double aneurysmal flow reduction, thereby accelerating aneurysm occlusion. Moreover, ultrahigh blood shear stress was observed through FD pores, which could potentially activate platelets as an additional aneurysmal thrombosis mechanism 4).

Flow-diversion technique is well-suited for the treatment of large, giant, wide-necked, and fusiform intracranial aneurysms because it does not rely on endosaccular packing with coils but rather on the strategy of placing a stent across the aneurysm “neck” or across the diseased segment of a vessel in case of a fusiform aneurysm. Over time, neointimal endothelium covers the flow diverter such that it becomes incorporated into the parent vessel wall and occludes the aneurysm from the circulation, effectively repairing the diseased parent vessel segment 5).

The use of FD has recently expanded to cover many types of IAs in various locations. Some institutions even attempt FD as first line treatment for unruptured IAs.

The woven endobridge aneurysm embolization device (WEB) is the first intrasaccular flow-diverter device dedicated to IA treatment.

This treatment was feasible and mostly used in bifurcation aneurysms (MCA, BA, ICA) with unfavorable anatomy. Further studies are needed to precisely evaluate the indications, safety, and efficacy of this new technique 6).

Pipeline embolization device

Silk flow diverter

Surpass flow diverter

The most widely used devices are the pipeline embolization device (PED), the SILK flow diverter (SFD), the flow redirection endoluminal device (FRED), and Surpass. Many questions were raised regarding the long-term complications (i.e., delayed bleeding and device migration), the optimal regimen of dual antiplatelet therapy (APT), and the durability of treatment effect 7).

The FD technique relies on a concept of endoluminal reconstruction of the parent artery and the aneurysm neck by excluding the aneurysm from the circulation. The stasis of blood flow in the aneurysm leads to an inflammatory response followed by thrombosis and “healing” of the aneurysm while the stent acts as a scaffold for neointimal proliferation and remodeling of the parent vessel. Therefore, the FD approach is considered physiologic as it restores the normal homeostasis. A recent study showed that flow-diverter device (FDD) reduces the velocity in the aneurysm sac significantly more than multiple “non-flow diverter” stents, even though both dramatically reduce the aneurysmal fluid movement 8).

To break the communication between the parent artery and the aneurysm while maintaining a patency of sidewall branches, the device must fulfill two requirements: a low porosity (metal-free to metal-covered area) and a high pore density (number of pores per square millimeters for a given porosity) 9) 10). However, sidewall branch occlusions do not always lead to ischemia since collaterals may maintain flow to the dependent area. Even more, when collaterals are not present, the increased demand for tissue perfusion may, in some cases, generate a pressure gradient sufficient to maintain an anterograde flow through the device 11). The technique involves navigating an FDD through the arterial system and deploying it across the aneurysm neck. Proper deployment is essential as inadequate wall apposition may decrease the flow with consequent thrombus formation at the interface followed by thromboembolic events 12). Proper deployment and adequate wall apposition can be achieved by balloon (Boston angioplasty) 13) , though not always needed. More so, the increased turbulence along with the lytic enzymes released from platelet aggregation predisposes to a possible lysis of the aneurysmal wall that can usually occur in the following days post-op 14).

see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938101/#B10

Kiselev et al., from the Centre of Angioneurology and Neurosurgery of E.N. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center in Novosibirsk, Russia, performed a prospective randomized comparison of clinical and surgical outcomes of flow diversion versus PVO and bypass in patients with complex anterior circulation aneurysms.

39 out of 40 patients (97.5%) from matched flow diverter (FD) group reached good clinical outcome. In the matched bypass group acceptable outcome was achieved in 32 (80%) out of 40 patients (difference between groups p = 0.029). The morbidity and mortality rates were 15% and 5%, respectively. Difference in the rates of favorable outcomes, compared by χ2 met statistical significance (p = 0.014). The rate of complete aneurysm occlusion at 6 months was 42.5% in the FD group and 95% in surgical group (p < 0.0001). The rate of complete occlusion at 12 months was 65% in the FD group and 97.5% in surgical group. The difference between groups was still significant (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups by occurrence of ischemic (p = 0.108) and hemorrhagic (p = 0.615) complications.

The study demonstrated superior clinical outcomes for endovascular flow diversion in comparison with bypass surgery in treatment of complex aneurysms. Though, both techniques grant similar percentage of major neurologic complications and comparable cure rate for cranial neuropathy. Nevertheless, flow diversion is associated with significantly lower early obliteration rate, thus possesses patient for risks of prolonged dual antiplatelet regimen and delayed rupture. Hence, it's important to stratify patient by the natural risk of aneurysm rupture prior to treatment selection 15).


Eleven patients with 12 aneurysms were treated with flow diverters. Two patients had ruptured dissecting aneurysms. One patient with a basilar trunk aneurysm died of acute in stent thrombosis and another patient died of brain stem ischaemia at 32 months follow-up. One patient had ischaemia with permanent neurological deficit. Two aneurysms are still open at up to 30 months follow-up. Flow diversion was used in 2% of all endovascular treatments. Both our own poor results and the high complication rates reported in the literature have converted our initial enthusiasm to apprehension and hesitancy. The safety and efficacy profile of flow diversion should discourage the use of these devices in aneurysms that can be treated with other techniques 16).

A systematic electronic database search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, Springer, and EBSCO for all accessible articles on FDDs published until December 2014. Abstracts, full-text manuscripts, and the reference lists of retrieved articles were analyzed. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the occlusion rate outcomes across studies.

Fifty-nine studies containing efficacy data on 2263 patients with more than 2493 treated aneurysms were included in the analysis. The overall complete occlusion rate was 82.5% (95% CI, 78.8%-86%) across studies. The success rate of FDD implantation was 97.4% (95% CI, 95.4%-99.4%). The occlusion rate for anterior circulation aneurysms was 83.3% (95% CI, 71.2%-95.4%); with regard to complete occlusion, the odds ratio for anterior circulation aneurysms was significantly higher than that of posterior circulation IAs (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.00-3.73).

FDDs have high technical success rates in the management of IAs. Additional studies on well-designed multicenter randomized controlled trials will be required to validate the findings of the present study and to identify the best therapeutic strategy for IAs depending on their size, location, and characteristics 17).


1)
Kadirvel R, Ding YH, Dai D, Rezek I, Lewis DA, Kallmes DF. Cellular mechanisms of aneurysm occlusion after treatment with a flow diverter. Radiology. 2014;270(2):394-399.
2)
Ding YH, Lewis DA, Kadirvel R, Dai D, Kallmes DF. The Woven EndoBridge: a new aneurysm occlusion device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(3):607-611.
3)
Kadirvel R, Ding YH, Dai D, Rezek I, Lewis DA, Kallmes DF. Cellular mechanisms of aneurysm occlusion after treatment with a flow diverter. Radiology. 2014 Feb;270(2):394-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130796. Epub 2013 Oct 28. PubMed PMID: 24086073; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4228749.
4)
Xiang J, Ma D, Snyder KV, Levy EI, Siddiqui AH, Meng H. Increasing flow diversion for cerebral aneurysm treatment using a single flow diverter. Neurosurgery. 2014 Sep;75(3):286-94. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000409. PubMed PMID: 24867201.
5)
Eller JL, Dumont TM, Sorkin GC, Mokin M, Levy EI, Snyder KV, Hopkins LN, Siddiqui AH. The Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014 Mar;11(2):137-50. doi:10.1586/17434440.2014.877188. PubMed PMID: 24506298.
6)
Pierot L, Liebig T, Sychra V, Kadziolka K, Dorn F, Strasilla C, Kabbasch C, Klisch J. Intrasaccular flow-disruption treatment of intracranial aneurysms: preliminary results of a multicenter clinical study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Aug;33(7):1232-8. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3191. Epub 2012 Jun 7. PubMed PMID: 22678844.
7)
Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Tjoumakaris SI, Rosenwasser RH, Gonzalez LF, Jabbour P. Flow-Diversion Panacea or Poison? Front Neurol. 2014 Feb 28;5:21. eCollection 2014. Review. PubMed PMID: 24592254; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3938101.
8)
Kojima M, Irie K, Fukuda T, Arai F, Hirose Y, Negoro M. The study of flow diversion effects on aneurysm using multiple enterprise stents and two flow diverters. Asian J Neurosurg (2012) 7:159–65.10.4103/1793-5482.106643
9) , 11)
Sadasivan C, Cesar L, Seong J, Rakian A, Hao Q, Tio FO, et al. An original flow diversion device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: evaluation in the rabbit elastase-induced model. Stroke (2009) 40:952–8.10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.533760
10) , 12)
De Vries J, Boogaarts J, Van Norden A, Wakhloo AK. New generation of flow diverter (surpass) for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a prospective single-center study in 37 patients. Stroke (2013) 44:1567–77.10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000434
13)
Chalouhi N, Tjoumakaris S, Starke RM, Gonzalez LF, Randazzo C, Hasan D, et al. Comparison of flow diversion and coiling in large unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms. Stroke (2013) 44:2150–4.10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001785
14)
Briganti F, Napoli M, Tortora F, Solari D, Bergui M, Boccardi E, et al. Italian multicenter experience with flow-diverter devices for intracranial unruptured aneurysm treatment with periprocedural complications – a retrospective data analysis. Neuroradiology (2012) 54:1145–52.10.1007/s00234-012-1047-3
15)
Kiselev R, Orlov K, Dubovoy A, Berestov V, Gorbatykh A, Kislitsin D, Shayakhmetov T, Tasenko A, Seleznev P, Strelnikov N, Ovsyannikov K, Gladkikh V, Moskalev A. Flow diversion versus parent artery occlusion with bypass in the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms: Immediate and short-term outcomes of the randomized trial. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Jul 2;172:183-189. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.06.042. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30053620.
16)
van Rooij WJ, Bechan RS, Peluso JP, Sluzewski M. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms in the flow diverter era: frequency of use and results in a consecutive series of 550 treatments in a single centre. Interv Neuroradiol. 2014 Sep 15;20(4):428-35. doi: 10.15274/NRJ-2014-10047. Epub 2014 Aug 28. PubMed PMID: 25207905.
17)
Zhou G, Su M, Zhu YQ, Li MH. Efficacy of flow-diverting devices for cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2015 Oct 1. pii: S1878-8750(15)01256-5. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.088. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26434569.
  • flow_diversion.txt
  • Last modified: 2021/03/08 12:03
  • by administrador