Comments on this technology were invited from clinical experts working in the field and relevant patient organisations. The comments received are individual opinions and do not represent NICE's view.
Six experts were familiar with the technology and 4 had used it before.
Two experts said the technology was innovative. Three said it was better than current alternatives and previous versions of the device. All said the pCONUS2 is a specialist device and is not widely used. All said the technology has not been superseded but all acknowledged there are comparator devices available.
Five experts said the technology would benefit people with wide-necked aneurysms for whom treatment options are limited, such as middle cerebral bifurcation aneurysms and basilar or carotid termination aneurysms. Three said the use of single antiplatelet therapy has fewer associated complications than dual antiplatelet therapy. One said using pCONUS2 may reduce thromboembolic complications.
All experts said the technology would reduce the number of neurosurgical procedures by increasing the range of aneurysms that can be treated endovascularly. Two experts said using endovascular treatment instead of surgical treatment would reduce intensive care bed days. All experts said adopting pCONUS2 would have no impact on resources. Two experts believed the technology would cost more than standard care, 1 believed the technology would be cost saving and 3 said it would be cost neutral.
Two experts said more evidence is needed to prove the safety of using the device with single antiplatelet therapy. Five said the technology should be available as an addition to standard care and used when standard care is not appropriate. One said the technology would replace Y-stenting. Two experts said there would be a learning curve for inexperienced interventional neuroradiologists.