Search

Purpose Flow diverting stents have revolutionized the treatment of intracranial aneurysms through endoluminal reconstruction of the parent vessel. Despite this, certain aneurysms require retreatment. The purpose of this study was to identify clinical and radiologic determinants of aneurysm retreatment following flow diversion. Methods A multicenter flow diversion database was evaluated to identify patients presenting with an unruptured, previously untreated aneurysm with a minimum of 12 months’ clinical and angiographic follow-up. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modeling was performed to identify determinants of retreatment. Results We identified 189 aneurysms treated in 189 patients with a single flow-diverting stent. Mean age was 54 years, and 89% were female. Complete occlusion was achieved in 70.3% and 83.6% of patients at six and 12 months, respectively. Aneurysm retreatment with additional flow-diverting stents occurred in 5.8% of cases. Univariate analysis revealed that dome diameter [Formula: see text]10 mm ( p = 0.012), pre-clinoid internal carotid artery location ( p = 0.012), distal > proximal parent vessel diameter ( p = 0.042), and later dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) discontinuation ( p Conclusions Prolonged DAPT is the most important determinant of aneurysm retreatment following single-device flow diversion. Abbreviating DAPT duration to only six months should be a consideration in this population, especially for patients with a large aneurysm dome diameter.

Here, we describe a case of a woman suspected to have an anterior cerebral artery (ACA) aneurysm that was ultimately found to have an azygous ACA shield. This benign entity highlights the importance of thorough investigation with cerebral digital subtraction angiography (DSA). This 73-year-old female initially presented with dyspnea and dizziness. CT angiogram of the head suggested an incidental 5 mm ACA aneurysm. Subsequent DSA demonstrated a Type I azygos ACA supplied by the left A1 segment. Also noted was a focal dilatation of the azygos trunk as it gave rise to the bilateral pericallosal and callosomarginal arteries. Three-dimensional visualization demonstrated a benign dilatation secondary to the four vessels branching; no aneurysm was noted. Incidence of aneurysms at the distal dividing point of an azygos ACA ranges from 13% to 71%. However, careful anatomical examination is imperative as findings may be a benign dilatation for which case intervention is not indicated.

Background Transradial access for neurointerventional procedures was adopted and modified from cardiovascular intervention and is increasingly established as a safe and effective alternative to transfemoral catheterization. As social media influences public opinion on medical treatment, this study analyzes Twitter conversations to elucidate social media’s depiction of transradial access as a neurointerventional tool. Materials and methods Twitter hashtags #RadialFirst and #RadialForNeuro were evaluated using a mixed-method analysis of quantitative social media metrics and qualitative thematic analysis. Results Between January 2015 and April 2020, 104,146 tweets from 141 countries employed the hashtag #RadialFirst (2015 (1); 2016 (0); 2017 (22,804); 2018 (33,074); 2019 (38,352); 2020 (9,915 January-April)). These generated 226,909,374 impressions and were retweeted 80,120 times by 13,707 users. Media was present in 62.5% of tweets (e.g. wrist image, angiographic runs) but only 14.5% had a reference article. Physicians authored 70.8% of tweets; interventional cardiologists accounted for 83% of top 100 influencers. #RadialForNeuro is more nascent (6 posts in 2019; 323 posts January–April 2020), with 392,662 impressions, and 254 retweets by 177 users; physicians authored 35.6%. Compared to #RadialFirst, #RadialforNeuro tweets were more likely to include media (76%), less likely to include citations (9.7%), and more likely to discuss complications and troubleshooting techniques. Conclusion Twitter activity regarding transradial access permits information dissemination and discussion on approach benefits and challenges. However, many posts arise from non-physician sources and lack links to peer-reviewed publication. The public should be mindful that tweets may reflect opinions, rather than experience or scientific evidence.