What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of the Pipeline and Derivo embolization devices in treating unruptured cerebral aneurysms.

May 7, 2026Open Access

Comparison Between Pipeline Embolization Device and Derivo Embolization Device for the Treatment of Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms: A Single-Center Analysis

Key Points

The study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of the Pipeline and Derivo embolization devices in treating unruptured cerebral aneurysms.
Retrospective analysis of 103 patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysms treated with PED or DED.
Evaluation of aneurysm occlusion, complications, and clinical outcomes over varying follow-up periods.
Comparison of rates of in-stent stenosis and thromboembolic events between the two devices.
Technical success with flow diverters was achieved in all patients.
Long-term aneurysm occlusion was greater with the DED (95.8%) than the PED (87.5%), but not statistically significant (p = 0.084).
In-stent stenosis was significantly lower with the DED (29.8%) compared to the PED (53.6%; p = 0.017).
No procedural mortality recorded, and morbidity rates were similar across devices.

Abstract

Background: The introduction of flow diverters (FDs) has greatly enhanced the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. This study compares two FDs, the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and the Derivo Embolization Device (DED), in terms of technical, angiographic and clinical aspects. Methods: A total of 103 patients with unruptured aneurysms were treated with the PED (n = 56) and DED (n = 47) between 2012 and 2019. Aneurysm occlusion, procedural complications, occurrence of In-stent stenosis and clinical outcome were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Implantation of the flow diverters was technically successful in all patients. There were no significant differences between baseline characteristics and aneurysm morphology. Angiographic follow-up was available with a median short-term follow-up of 3 months and a median long-term follow-up time of 16 months. Adequate aneurysm occlusion at long-term follow-up was substantially but not significantly greater with the DED (95.8%, 45/47) compared to the PED (87.5%, 49/56) (p = 0.084). In-stent stenoses were significantly less frequent with the DED (29.8%; 14/47) than with the PED (53.6%, 30/57) at short-term follow-up (p = 0.017), although moderate and asymptomatic overall. Thromboembolic or hemorrhagic events occurred in 10.7% (6/56) of cases with the PED and 8.5% (4/47) with the DED (p = 0.752). Morbidity rates were similar between devices (PED 3.6% (2/56), DED 2.1% (1/47), p = 1.0). There was no procedural mortality. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes and complications were comparable between the PED and DED while aneurysm occlusion was considerably greater at long-term follow-up and in-stent stenosis significantly less frequent at short-term follow-up with the DED. The surface-modified design of the DED may contribute to reduced thrombogenicity and early advantages in preventing in-stent stenosis. Further comparative studies are necessary to investigate these findings, particularly comparing surface-modified flow diverters with newer-generation devices featuring true coatings.

Read Full Paperexternally

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper