Pipeline Embolization Device and Pipeline Flex Versus Surpass Streamline Flow Diversion in Intracranial Aneurysms: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy profiles in aneurysms treated with Pipeline Embolization Device or Pipeline Flex versus Surpass Streamline flow diverters (FDs). METHODS: Patients who underwent flow diversion for aneurysm treatment at 2 centers were included. Covariates comprised patient demographics, comorbidities, and aneurysm characteristics. Metrics included number of devices, adjuvant device use, case duration, and radiation exposure. Outcomes included periprocedural complications and radiographic results at follow-up. Propensity score-matched pairs were generated using demographic and aneurysm characteristics to verify the outcomes in equally sized groups. RESULTS: The majority of 141 flow diversion procedures performed on 126 patients were in the anterior circulation (96%) and unruptured (93%). Operators experienced more complications placing Surpass FDs compared with Pipelines (18.2% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.005) but used fewer Surpass devices per case (1 device in all Surpass cases and range for Pipeline cases 1-7; P < 0.001). Ballooning was more frequent for Surpass (29.5% vs. 2.1%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in mortality (2.1% vs. 0, P = 1.00), intracranial hemorrhage (3.1% vs. 0, P = 0.551), or stroke (4.2% vs. 6.8%, P = 0.680). Rates of aneurysm obliteration at follow-up were similar. Propensity-matched pairs had no differences in FD deployment complications or perioperative events, yet the significant differences remained for adjuvant balloon use and number of FDs deployed. CONCLUSIONS: While the devices demonstrated similar safety and efficacy profiles, deployment of the Surpass Streamline was more technically challenging than Pipeline Embolization Device or Pipeline Flex. Prospective cohort studies are needed to corroborate these findings.