Objectives This study evaluated the clinical impact of the Sim&Size® simulation software on the endovascular treatment with flow-diverter stents of patients with unruptured saccular intracranial aneurysms. Methods This monocentric retrospective study evaluated a cohort of patients treated with flow-divert stents between June 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, for cerebral aneurysms. Patients belonged to two groups, patients treated with and without the Sim&Size® simulation software. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the clinical impact of simulation software. Results Out of the 73 interventions involving 68 patients analyzed by the study, 76.7% were simulated using the Sim&Size® simulation software, and 23.3% were not. Patients treated with the simulation software had shorter stent lengths (16.00 mm vs. 20.00 mm p-value = 0.001) and surgical time (100.00 min vs. 118.00 min p-value = 0.496). Also, fewer of them required more than one stent (3.6% vs. 17.6% p-value = 0.079). Three patients belonging to the non-stimulated group presented hemorrhagic complications. Conclusions Using the Sim&Size® simulation software for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with pipeline flow-diverter stents reduces the stent length.

Background and purpose The carotid stent placement as a therapeutic option for carotid stenosis has been increasing among years; therefore, studies are required to evaluate the security and efficacy of its materials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the distal filter and the proximal balloon-guided catheter with flow inversion as protection devices during carotid angioplasty and stenting. Methods This is a retrospective, observational study of patients diagnosed with carotid stenosis treated with angioplasty between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020; we analyzed a radiology service database to compare the distal filter and the proximal balloon-guided catheter as protection devices during angioplasty. Results One hundred seventy-five angioplasties were performed, the distal filter was the most prevalent embolic protection device used (66%), patients baseline characteristics did not differ between groups with different embolic protection devices, except for history of dyslipidemia ( p  <  0.000). As well, we did not find any significant differences between the groups in the device related complications, intervention time ( p  =  0.140), unrelated complications ( p  =  0.693) and functional independence at 90 days (p =  0.096). Conclusions In our study the proximal balloon-guided catheter and the distal filter protection device as protection devices during the carotid stenting didn't show significant differences regarding complications related to the system.

No abstract