Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2024
Safety and efficacy profile of off-label use of the Pipeline Embolization Device: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Senol Yigit Can, Orscelik Atakan, Bilgin Cem, Kobeissi Hassan, Ghozy Sherief, Arul Santhosh, Kallmes David F, Kadirvel Ramanathan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The off-label utilization of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) is a common practice in numerous medical centers globally. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the overall outcomes of this off-label usage of PEDs.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and Scopus were searched up to February 2023 using the Nested Knowledge platform to identify studies assessing the off-label use of PEDs. Any use of PED outside of the FDA-approved indication granted in 2018 is considered off-label use. Overall angiographic occlusion rates, ischemic and hemorrhagic complications, mortality, retreatment rates, and favorable clinic outcomes were included. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the overall outcome rates of anterior cerebral artery(ACA) vs. middle cerebral artery(MCA) and anterior vs posterior circulation subgroups.
RESULTS: We included 26 studies involving a total of 1,408 patients. The overall rate of complete occlusion was 80.3 % (95 % CI= 76.0-84.1). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the rate of complete occlusion between anterior circulation (78.9 %) and posterior circulation (69.2 %) (p value=0.02). The rate of good clinical outcomes was 92.8 % (95 % CI= 88.8-95.4). The mortality rate was 1.4 % (95 % CI= 0.5-2.7). The overall rate of ischemic complications was 9.5 % (95 % CI= 7.7-11.6), with a comparable difference between anterior circulation (7.7 %) and posterior circulation (12.8 %) (p value=0.07). There was no statistically significant difference in MCA vs ACA subgroups in all parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Off-label use of PEDs can be a safe and effective treatment option for intracranial aneurysms. However, there is a need for more prospective, high-quality, non-industry-funded registry studies and randomized trials to test the efficacy and safety of off-label usage of PEDs and to expand its indications.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and Scopus were searched up to February 2023 using the Nested Knowledge platform to identify studies assessing the off-label use of PEDs. Any use of PED outside of the FDA-approved indication granted in 2018 is considered off-label use. Overall angiographic occlusion rates, ischemic and hemorrhagic complications, mortality, retreatment rates, and favorable clinic outcomes were included. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the overall outcome rates of anterior cerebral artery(ACA) vs. middle cerebral artery(MCA) and anterior vs posterior circulation subgroups.
RESULTS: We included 26 studies involving a total of 1,408 patients. The overall rate of complete occlusion was 80.3 % (95 % CI= 76.0-84.1). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the rate of complete occlusion between anterior circulation (78.9 %) and posterior circulation (69.2 %) (p value=0.02). The rate of good clinical outcomes was 92.8 % (95 % CI= 88.8-95.4). The mortality rate was 1.4 % (95 % CI= 0.5-2.7). The overall rate of ischemic complications was 9.5 % (95 % CI= 7.7-11.6), with a comparable difference between anterior circulation (7.7 %) and posterior circulation (12.8 %) (p value=0.07). There was no statistically significant difference in MCA vs ACA subgroups in all parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Off-label use of PEDs can be a safe and effective treatment option for intracranial aneurysms. However, there is a need for more prospective, high-quality, non-industry-funded registry studies and randomized trials to test the efficacy and safety of off-label usage of PEDs and to expand its indications.