Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 843

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Pipeline Embolization Device for the Intracranial Treatment of Aneurysms Trial

Open access
Nelson, P.K., Lylyk, P., Szikora, I., Wetzel, S.G., Wanke, I., Fiorella, D.·2011·American Journal of Neuroradiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endoluminal reconstruction with flow diverting devices represents a novel constructive technique for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. We present the results of the first prospective multicenter trial of a flow-diverting construct for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with unruptured aneurysms that were wide-necked (> 4 mm), had unfavorable dome/neck ratios (<1.5), or had failed previous therapy were enrolled in the PITA trial between January and May 2007 at 4 (3 European and 1 South American) centers. Aneurysms were treated with the PED with or without adjunctive coil embolization. All patients underwent clinical evaluation at 30 and 180 days and conventional angiography 180 days after treatment. Angiographic results were adjudicated by an experienced neuroradiologist at a nonparticipating site. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with 31 intracranial aneurysms (6 men; 42-76 years of age; average age, 54.6 years) were treated during the study period. Twenty-eight aneurysms arose from the ICA (5 cavernous, 15 parophthalmic, 4 superior hypophyseal, and 4 posterior communicating segments), 1 from the MCA, 1 from the vertebral artery, and 1 from the vertebrobasilar junction. Mean aneurysm size was 11.5 mm, and mean neck size was 5.8 mm. Twelve (38.7%) aneurysms had failed (or recurred after) a previous endovascular treatment. PED placement was technically successful in 30 of 31 patients (96.8%). Most aneurysms were treated with either 1 (n = 18) or 2 (n = 11) PEDs. Fifteen aneurysms (48.4%) were treated with a PED alone, while 16 were treated with both PED and embolization coils. Two patients experienced major periprocedural stroke. Follow-up angiography demonstrated complete aneurysm occlusion in 28 (93.3%) of the 30 patients who underwent angiographic follow-up. No significant in-construct stenosis (≥ 50%) was identified at follow-up angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Intracranial aneurysm treatment with the PED is technically feasible and can be achieved with a safety profile analogous to that reported for stent-supported coil embolization. PED treatment elicited a very high rate (93%) of complete angiographic occlusion at 6 months in a population of the most challenging anatomic subtypes of cerebral aneurysms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3174/ajnr.a2421

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 843

Metadata

Authors
Nelson, P. K., Lylyk, P., Szikora, I., Wetzel, S. G., Wanke, I., & Fiorella, D.
Venue
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Published
2010-12-09
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
34-40
ISSN
  • 0195-6108 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-959X
OpenAlex
W2138004881
Cited by
843
References
1
FWCI
30.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Pipeline Embolization Device for the Intracranial Treatment of Aneurysms Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3174/ajnr.a2421
The paper
Nelson, P. K., Lylyk, P., Szikora, I., Wetzel, S. G., Wanke, I., & Fiorella, D. (2011). The Pipeline Embolization Device for the Intracranial Treatment of Aneurysms Trial. American Journal of Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a2421

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.