Abstract 169: Antiplatelet regimens after pseudoaneurysm embolization with phosphorylcholine coated flow diverters: a series of 180 cases

Introduction Indications for flow diversion for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms have increased remarkably in recent years.1 This has been particularly useful for aneurysms that are difficult to treat via endosaccular or open approaches, such as pseudoaneurysms.2 Flow diversion, however, typically requires dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), which can contribute to greater morbidity particularly in patients with ruptured aneurysms or other comorbidities.3 The third‐generation iteration of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) incorporates Shield technology, a phosphorylcholine coating designed to reduce thrombogenicity via mimicry of native cell membranes.4 In light of this reduced thrombogenicity, there have been reports of early transition to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), or other variations on DAPT, in patients treated with PED Shield. We therefore aim to characterize the antiplatelet regimens, and associated thromboembolic/hemorrhagic outcomes, utilized in patients with aneurysms treated with PED Shield. Methods Factors including demographics, comorbidities, rupture status, devices placed, and antiplatelet regimen, among others, were collected. Follow‐up data including aneurysm thromboembolic complication, hemorrhagic complication, new neurological deficit, aneurysm occlusion, and in‐stent thrombosis were also recorded. Results One‐hundred and eighty patients were included in analysis, 18 of which were acutely ruptured. One hundred and sixty‐two patients had a single device placed, while the remaining had two devices placed. Three patients were maintained on SAPT post‐procedurally (aspirin or clopidogrel), with two additional patients treated with SAPT plus an anticoagulant for other purposes. One hundred and seventy‐two patients were maintained on DAPT, most commonly aspirin/clopidogrel (115), followed by aspirin/ticagrelor (40), and aspirin/prasugrel (16). Seven patients had strokes of any kind, three of which were unrelated to the treatment territory, and two of the remaining 4 were non‐compliant with antiplatelet therapy. One patient had a new intraparenchymal hemorrhage, but no appreciable deficit. Of the 135 patients with 6‐month follow‐up, 77 had complete aneurysm occlusion, and 116 demonstrated no in‐stent thrombosis. Conclusion We demonstrate herein the similar safety profile and efficacy of PED Shield with varying antiplatelet regimens, including SAPT in isolated cases.