Endovascular treatment of basilar tip aneurysms in the era of endosaccular flow disruption. A comparative study

This study aims to compare endosaccular flow disruptor (EFD) for treatment of basilar tip aneurysm (BTA) with coiling in terms of safety and efficacy. We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with an EFD for BTAs at our institution between 2013 and 2019 to standard coiling from the same period (control group). Patient demographics, aneurysm characteristics, procedural data, complications and clinical and angiographic outcome were compared between groups. Twenty-three (56%) patients were treated with an EFD and eighteen (44%) patients were treated with coiling. Average aneurysm size was 8 mm in the EFD group and 6.9 mm in the coiling group, respectively (P = 0.2). Average fluoroscopy time, treatment DAP and air kerma were 33 min, 76 Gycm${}^2$ and 1.7 Gy in the EFD group and 81 min, 152 Gycm${}^2$ and 3.8 Gy in the coiling group, respectively (P < 0.001). In the EFD group, clinically relevant thromboembolic complications occurred in one patient (4%) vs. in 5 patients (28%) in the coiling group (P = 0.07). In each group, 4 patients had an unfavourable outcome at discharge (P = 0.7). Adequate occlusion rates were 96% in the EFD group and 100% and coiling group. Six (26%) patients were prescribed long-term antiplatelet therapy in the EFD group vs. eleven (61%) patients in the coiling group (P = 0.02). Both treatment concepts provided similar technical success and safety. However, procedure time, radiation exposure and a need for long-term antiaggregation were lower with EFD.