E-187 Comparative analysis of procedure related morbidity and mortality between pipeline, pipeline flex embolization device and surpass

Introduction The purpose of this study is to compare peri-procedural complication rates in patients at a single academic medical center treated with Surpass or Pipeline/Pipeline Flex flow diverter stents. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent placement of a flow diverter stent from the last 3 years. We evaluated major complications including mortality, stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) or failure of device deployment, and minor complications including radial and groin access site hematoma, retroperitoneal hematoma (RPH), arterial dissection. We also recorded hospital course complications including urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia (PNA) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We examined the length of hospital stay (LOS), and disposition at discharge. We adjusted for the following variables: Patient age, gender, pre-existing medical comorbidities, laterality, anatomic location of treated aneurysm, device utilized, number of devices deployed per case, longest length and diameter of all devices deployed per case. Results We identified 23 Surpass cases and 99 pipeline cases performed on a total of 106 patients. The median number of devices used for Surpass was 1 (IQR 1,1) compared to Pipeline/Pipeline Flex 1 (IQR 1,3) which was statistically significantly different (p=0.0003)We found no significant difference in mortality(p=0.4949), stroke(p=0.3565), intracerebral hemorrhage(p=0.3310), or aborted procedures(p=0.4021). There was no significant difference in minor complications or hospital complications. The median length of stay was 1 day for both devices. Interquartile length for Surpass 1–3(75th%); and Pipeline 1–26(75th%), mann-whitney p=0.238 between the medians. Conclusions These results suggest that Surpass is non-inferior to Pipeline in regards to major and minor peri-procedural complications. Pipeline on average required a statistically significant more number of devices per procedure. There was no difference in the length of stay between Surpass and Pipeline. Further prospective data is needed to further confirm this hypothesis. Disclosures C. Feigen: None. N. Haranhalli: None. R. Holland: None. A. Brook: None. D. Altschul: 2; C; Microvention, Stryker.