1naresh
Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) ) 1nareshArray ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) )Table 6:Complication rates with different flow diverters including the period under review
Author Year Flow Diverter No. of Patients Thromboembolic Complications Hemorrhagic Complications Median Follow-Up Time (mo) Möhlenbruch et al8 2015 FRED 29 14.0% 3.0% 6 Poncyljusz et al11 2013 FRED 6 17.0% 0.0% 3 Briganti et al12 2016 FRED 20 0.0% 0.0% 12 Lubicz et al13 2015 Silk 26 23.1% 11.5% 6 Briganti et al4 2012 Silk + Pipeline 273 4.8% 5.5% 3 Colby et al7 2016 Pipeline Flex 44 2.0% 0.0% Not applicable De Vries et al14 2013 Surpass 37 13.5% 5.4% 12 Fischer et al15 2015 p64 130 3.0% 0.0% 9 Our data 2016 FRED 48 15.4% 1.9% 12