Safety and Efficacy of Low-Profile Braided Stents versus Flow Diverters in the Reconstructive Technique in the Treatment of Patients with Vertebrobasilar Dolichoectasia Aneurysms: A Cohort of 47 Patients with Long-Term Follow-Up

Abstract

Background and purpose: Vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysm is a rare type of cerebrovascular disorder with a poor natural history, and endovascular treatment is widely accepted. Whether a high-profile braided stent (flow diverter) could promote occlusion of vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysm without increasing the complications rather than a low-profile braided stent remains uncertain. The aim of the study was to present a single-center experience of the safety and efficacy of a low-profile braided stent versus a flow diverter in treating patients with vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms.

Materials and methods: The retrospective review was conducted on a total of 432 consecutive patients diagnosed with posterior circulation aneurysms who underwent endovascular treatment in our center from August 2013 to December 2021. Among these patients, 47 individuals with vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms who were treated with low-profile braided stents or flow diverters were included. Vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms involving only the vertebral artery were excluded. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the low-profile braided stent group and the flow diverter group based on the device used. Safety and efficacy outcomes were subsequently analyzed.

Results: There were 25 total patients enrolled in low-profile braided stent group and 22 patients in flow diverter group. The safety of low-profile braided stents and flow diverters in the treatment of vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms was evaluated by clinical outcome, a new neurologic deficit due to procedural complications, and neurologic death. The rates of good clinical outcome were similar between the 2 groups (low-profile braided stent, 56%, versus flow diverter, 59.1%; P = .831), and the rates of neurologic death were also similar (low-profile braided stent, 12%, versus flow diverter, 9.1%; P = .747). Higher rates of new neurologic deficits due to procedural complications were observed in the flow diverter group, but the difference was not significant (low-profile braided stent, 24%, versus flow diverter, 40.9%; P = .215). The efficacy was evaluated by angiographic occlusion of vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms and progression of mass effect resulting from these aneurysms. Significantly higher rates of complete occlusion of vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms were shown in the flow diverter group (41.2%; P = .028) than in the low-profile braided stent group (10%).

Conclusions: Both low-profile braided stents and flow diverters have similar high risks in reconstructive techniques in the treatment of vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms, while a flow diverter is more effective in promoting complete occlusion of vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysm than a low-profile braided stent. A flow diverter may be a better alternative for carefully selected patients with vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia aneurysms.