Table 3.
Comparison between LEO Baby and LVIS Jr stent
| Variables | LEO Baby | LVIS Jr | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of IAs, n (%) of the total of 217 IAs | 128 (59) | 89 (41) | 217 |
| SAH, n (%) of the total of 217 IAs | 18 (14) | 30 (33.7) | 48 (22.1) |
| Vessel diameter on stenting (range), mm | 0.75–3.1 | 1.1–3.2 | 0.75–3.2 |
| Location | |||
| Anterior circulation | 112 (87.5) | 73 (82) | 185 (85) |
| Posterior circulation | 16 (12.5) | 16 (18) | 32 (15) |
| Method of stent deployment | |||
| Single stent | 93 (73) | 64 (72) | 157 (72) |
| Overlapping | 22 (17) | 20 (22) | 42 (19) |
| Balloon followed by stenting | 8 (6) | 4 (4) | 12 (6) |
| Flow diverter | 5 (1: blister) (4) | 1 (1) | 6 (3) |
| Degree of obliteration | |||
| Immediately | |||
| I + II | 119 (93) | 70 (79) | 189 (87) |
| III | 7 (7)a | 19 (21)b | 28 (13) |
| 3- to 6-month follow-up | |||
| I + II | 119 (93) | 40 (44.9) | 159 (73) |
| III | 3 (2) | 3 (3.4) | 6 (3) |
| Stable | – (–) | 34 (38.2)c | 34 (6) |
| No image on follow-up | 6 (5) | 12 (13.5) | 18 (8) |
| Recurrence of total number | 7 (5) | 1 (1) | 8 (4) |
| Recurrence of followed up number | 7 (5.7) | 1 (1.3) | 8 (6.5) |
| Intraprocedural complications | 14 (10.9) | 10 (11.2) | 27 (12.4) |
| Thromboembolism | 8 (6.3) | 6 (6.7) | 14 (6.5) |
| Technical problem | 6 (4.7) | 4 (4.5)d | 10 (4.6) |
| In-stent stenosis of total number | 15 (11.7) | 4 (4.2) | 19 (9) |
| In-stent stenosis of followed up number | 15 (12.2) | 4 (5.2) | 19 (10) |
| Clinical outcome | |||
| Good mRS score | 123 (96) | 76 (85) | 199 (92) |
| Procedure-related morbidity | 3 (2) | 1 (1) | 4 (2) |
Values are n (%) unless specified otherwise. IA, intracranial aneurysm; SAH, subarachnoid hemorrhage; mRS, modified Rankin Scale.
a
Two IAs were not reported with immediate obliteration data due to thromboembolic events intraprocedurally [6].
b
Two patients were treated with flow diverters in the study by Akmangit et al. [9].
d
Four cases in 1 publication (Möhlenbruch et al. [6]).