Intracranial aneurysms (IAs) linger as a potentially devastating clinical problem. Despite intense investigation, our understanding of the mechanisms leading to aneurysm development, progression and rupture remain incompletely defined. An accumulating body of evidence implicates inflammation as a critical contributor to aneurysm pathogenesis. Intracranial aneurysm formation and progression appear to result from endothelial dysfunction, a mounting inflammatory response, and vascular smooth muscle cell phenotypic modulation producing a pro-inflammatory phenotype. A later final common pathway appears to involve apoptosis of cellular constituents of the vessel wall. These changes result in degradation of the integrity of the vascular wall leading to aneurysmal dilation, progression and eventual rupture in certain aneurysms. Various aspects of the inflammatory response have been investigated as contributors to IA pathogenesis including leukocytes, complement, immunoglobulins, cytokines, and other humoral mediators. Furthermore, gene expression profiling of IA compared with control arteries has prominently featured differential expression of genes involved with immune response/inflammation. Preliminary data suggest that therapies targeting the inflammatory response may have efficacy in the future treatment of IA. Further investigation, however, is necessary to elucidate the precise role of inflammation in IA pathogenesis, which can be exploited to improve the prognosis of patients harboring IA.

Background and Purpose— Flow diversion has emerged as an important tool for the management of intracranial aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to compare flow diversion and traditional embolization strategies in terms of safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes in patients with unruptured, large saccular aneurysms (≥10 mm). Methods— Forty patients treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) were matched in a 1:3 fashion with 120 patients treated with coiling based on patient age and aneurysm size. Fusiform and anterior communicating artery aneurysms were eliminated from the analysis. Procedural complications, angiographic results, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared. Results— There were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of patient age, sex, aneurysm size, and aneurysm location. The rate of procedure-related complications did not differ between the PED (7.5%) and the coil group (7.5%; P =1). At the latest follow-up, a significantly higher proportion of aneurysms treated with PED (86%) achieved complete obliteration compared with coiled aneurysms (41%; P <0.001). In multivariable analysis, coiling was an independent predictor of nonocclusion. Retreatment was necessary in fewer patients in the PED group (2.8%) than the coil group (37%; P <0.001). A similar proportion of patients attained a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale, 0–2) in the PED group (92%) and in the coil group (94%; P =0.8). Conclusions— The PED provides higher aneurysm occlusion rates than coiling, with no additional morbidity and similar clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that the PED might be a preferred treatment option for large unruptured saccular aneurysms.