An Official publication of The Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AsianCNS)

Search Article
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Advertise Subscribe Contacts Login  Facebook Tweeter
  Users Online: 1087 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 1240-1244

Endovascular rescue strategies for nonopening of pipeline device: Report of two cases

Department of Neurosciences, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Gaurav Goel
Department of Neurosciences, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurgaon - 122 001, Haryana
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_191_19

Rights and Permissions

We report two cases of rescue strategies for nonopening of Pipeline flow-diverter device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysm. The first patient, a 65-year-old female, presented with complaints of headache for 3 months and was found to have giant supraclinoid internal carotid artery (ICA) (ophthalmic segment) aneurysm. We planned endovascular partial coiling and flow-diverter placement for the treatment of ICA aneurysm. During the progressive deployment of PED, there was nonopening of Pipeline embolization device (PED) at its proximal end. We tried multiple attempts to navigate Marksman microcatheter over the PED delivery microwire and Echelon microcatheter over the Traxcess microwire across the pinched site, but we were not able to achieve success. After that, we tried opposite transcranial approach across prominent anterior communicating artery with the Synchro and Transcend microguidewire which finally resulted in the opening of the device; however, there was acute extravasation of dye on check angiogram. Thus, our technical success turned into disaster. The second patient, a 55-year-old female, presented with complaint of seizures for 3 months due to mass effect of cavernous sinus aneurysm. Pipeline Flex flow-diverter placement was done across the aneurysm neck. During the progressive deployment of device, there was nonopening of the mid and proximal segment of Pipeline Flex which was successfully managed by intra-Navien deployment of device followed by simultaneous push of Marksman microcatheter and pull of Navien catheter. In our case series, two rescue strategies were applied to successfully open the proximal constricted portion of Pipeline Flex; however, technical success in one case resulted in unmanageable disasters. Thus, transcranial rescue strategy for opening the constricted Pipeline Flex device should be cautiously used in our endovascular practice.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded88    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal