IntroductionThe endovascular stent-assisted coiling approach for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms is evolving rapidly with the availability of new stent devices. It remains unknown how each type of stent affects the safety and efficacy of the stent-coiling procedure.MethodsThis study compared the outcomes of endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms using Neuroform (NEU), Enterprise (EP), and Low-profile Visualized Intraluminal Support (LVIS) stents. Patient characteristics, treatment details and angiographic results using the Raymond–Roy grade scale (RRGS), and procedural complications were analyzed in our study.ResultsOur study included 659 patients with 670 cerebral aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling (NEU, n=182; EP, n=158; LVIS, n=330) that were retrospectively collected from six academic centers. Patient characteristics included mean age 56.3±12.1 years old, female prevalence 73.9%, and aneurysm rupture on initial presentation of 18.8%. We found differences in complete occlusion on baseline imaging, defined as RRGS I, among the three stents: LVIS 64.4%, 210/326; NEU 56.2%, 95/169; EP 47.6%, 68/143; P=0.008. The difference of complete occlusion on 10.5 months (mean) and 8 months (median) angiographic follow-up remained significant: LVIS 84%, 251/299; NEU 78%, 117/150; EP 67%, 83/123; P=0.004. There were 7% (47/670) intra-procedural complications and 11.5% (73/632) post-procedural-related complications in our cohort. Furthermore, procedure-related complications were higher in the braided-stents vs laser-cut, P=0.002.ConclusionsThere was a great variability in techniques and choice of stent type for stent-assisted coiling among the participating centers. The type of stent was associated with immediate and long-term angiographic outcomes. Randomized prospective trials comparing the different types of stents are warranted.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:There is a paucity of data regarding antiplatelet management strategies in the setting of stentassisted coiling/flow diversion for ruptured intracranial aneurysms. This study aimed to identify current challenges in antiplatelet management during stent-assisted coiling/flow diversion for ruptured intracranial aneurysms and to outline possible antiplatelet management strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The modified DELPHI approach with an on-line questionnaire was sent in several iterations to an international, multidisciplinary panel of 15 neurointerventionalists. The first round consisted of open-ended questions, followed by closed-ended questions in the subsequent rounds. Responses were analyzed in an anonymous fashion and summarized in the final manuscript draft. The statement received endorsement from the World Federation of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy, and the Chinese Neurosurgical Society.RESULTS: Data were collected from December 9, 2019, to March 13, 2020. Panel members achieved consensus that platelet function testing may not be necessary and that antiplatelet management for stent-assisted coiling and flow diversion of ruptured intracranial aneurysms can follow the same principles. Preprocedural placement of a ventricular drain was thought to be beneficial in cases with a high risk of hydrocephalus. A periprocedural dual, intravenous, antiplatelet regimen with aspirin and a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor was preferred as a standard approach. The panel agreed that intravenous medication can be converted to oral aspirin and an oral P2Y12 inhibitor within 24 hours after the procedure.CONCLUSIONS: More and better data on antiplatelet management of patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms undergoing stent-assisted coiling or flow diversion are urgently needed. Panel members in this DELPHI consensus study preferred a periprocedural dual-antiplatelet regimen with aspirin and a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor.

Purpose There is little data and lack of consensus regarding antiplatelet management for intracranial stenting due to underlying intracranial atherosclerosis in the setting of endovascular treatment (EVT). In this DELPHI study, we aimed to assess whether consensus on antiplatelet management in this situation among experienced experts can be achieved, and what this consensus would be. Methods We used a modified DELPHI approach to address unanswered questions in antiplatelet management for intracranial stenting due to underlying atherosclerosis in the setting of EVT. An expert-panel (19 neurointerventionalists from 8 countries) answered structured, anonymized on-line questionnaires with iterative feedback-loops. Panel-consensus was defined as agreement ≥ 70% for binary closed-ended questions/≥ 50% for closed-ended questions with > 2 response options. Results Panel members answered a total of 5 survey rounds. They acknowledged that there is insufficient data for evidence-based recommendations in many aspects of antiplatelet management for intracranial stenting due to underlying atherosclerosis in the setting of EVT. They believed that antiplatelet management should follow a standardized regimen, irrespective of imaging findings and reperfusion quality. There was no consensus on the timing of antiplatelet-therapy initiation. Aspirin was the preferred antiplatelet agent for the peri-procedural period, and oral Aspirin in combination with a P2Y12 inhibitor was the favored postprocedural regimen. Conclusion Data on antiplatelet management for intracranial stenting due to underlying atherosclerosis in the setting of EVT are limited. Panel-members in this study achieved consensus on postprocedural antiplatelet management but did not agree upon a preprocedural and intraprocedural antiplatelet regimen. Further prospective studies to optimize antiplatelet regimens are needed.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are only few data and lack of consensus regarding antiplatelet management for carotid stent placement in the setting of endovascular stroke treatment. We aimed to develop a consensus-based algorithm for antiplatelet management in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing endovascular treatment and simultaneous emergent carotid stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We performed a literature search and a modified Delphi approach used Web-based questionnaires that were sent in several iterations to an international multidisciplinary panel of 19 neurointerventionalists from 7 countries. The first round included open-ended questions and formed the basis for subsequent rounds, in which closed-ended questions were used. Participants continuously received feedback on the results from previous rounds. Consensus was defined as agreement of $70% for binary questions and agreement of $50% for questions with .2 answer options. The results of the Delphi process were then summarized in a draft manuscript that was circulated among the panel members for feedback.RESULTS: A total of 5 Delphi rounds were performed. Panel members preferred a single intravenous aspirin bolus or, in jurisdictions in which intravenous aspirin is not available, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor as intraprocedural antiplatelet regimen and a combination therapy of oral aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor in the postprocedural period. There was no consensus on the role of platelet function testing in the postprocedural period.CONCLUSIONS: More and better data on antiplatelet management for carotid stent placement in the setting of endovascular treatment are urgently needed. Panel members preferred intravenous aspirin or, alternatively, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor as an intraprocedural antiplatelet agent, followed by a dual oral regimen of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor in the postprocedural period.ABBREVIATIONS: EVT ¼ endovascular treatment; GPIIb/IIIa ¼ glycoprotein IIb/IIIa C urrently, it is not clear whether and when carotid stent placement should be performed in patients with acute ischemic stroke with extracranial carotid stenosis, occlusion, or unstable plaques undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT), but there is no doubt that carotid stent placement is necessary in some cases. 1 Numerous studies and review articles discuss the benefits and

Utilization of flow diverting devices is accompanied with dual antiplatelet therapy to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events, even though this increases the risk of hemorrhagic complications. The updated Pipeline Flex embolization device with Shield Technology has been created using a phosphorylcholine coating that reduces thrombogenicity and possibly reduces the need for dual antiplatelet therapy. However, because of the potential risk to patients of utilizing a pipeline embolization device without dual antiplatelet therapy, the pipeline embolization device with Shield Technology has not been tested in human subjects without dual antiplatelet therapy, and its contribution to preventing thromboembolic events is therefore unknown. We report a case in which a patient, following complications that limited his absorption of dual antiplatelet therapy, had low levels of dual antiplatelet therapy medications in his bloodstream following treatment for an intracranial aneurysm with a pipeline embolization device with Shield Technology. The patient recovered without signs of luminal stenosis or thromboembolic event.