BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Use of the Merci retriever is increasing as a means to reopen large intracranial arterial occlusions. We sought to determine whether there is an optimum number of retrieval attempts that yields the highest recanalization rates and after which the probability of success decreases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing Merci retrieval for large cerebral artery occlusions were prospectively tracked at a comprehensive stroke center. We analyzed ICA, M1 segment of the MCA, and vertebrobasilar occlusions. We compared the revascularization of the primary AOL with the number of documented retrieval attempts used to achieve that AOL score. For tandem lesions, each target lesion was compared separately on the basis of where the device was deployed. RESULTS: We identified a total of 97 patients with 115 arterial occlusions. The median number of attempts per target vessel was 3, while the median final AOL score was 2. Up to 3 retrieval attempts correlated with good revascularization (AOL 2 or 3). When >or=4 attempts were performed, the end result was more often failed revascularization (AOL 0 or 1) and procedural complications (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, 3 may be the optimum number of Merci retrieval attempts per target vessel occlusion. Four or more attempts may not improve the chances of recanalization, while increasing the risk of complications.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Use of the Merci retriever is increasing as a means to reopen large intracranial arterial occlusions. We sought to determine whether there is an optimum number of retrieval attempts that yields the highest recanalization rates and after which the probability of success decreases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing Merci retrieval for large cerebral artery occlusions were prospectively tracked at a comprehensive stroke center. We analyzed ICA, M1 segment of the MCA, and vertebrobasilar occlusions. We compared the revascularization of the primary AOL with the number of documented retrieval attempts used to achieve that AOL score. For tandem lesions, each target lesion was compared separately on the basis of where the device was deployed. RESULTS: We identified a total of 97 patients with 115 arterial occlusions. The median number of attempts per target vessel was 3, while the median final AOL score was 2. Up to 3 retrieval attempts correlated with good revascularization (AOL 2 or 3). When >or=4 attempts were performed, the end result was more often failed revascularization (AOL 0 or 1) and procedural complications (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, 3 may be the optimum number of Merci retrieval attempts per target vessel occlusion. Four or more attempts may not improve the chances of recanalization, while increasing the risk of complications.
Authors: Randall Higashida; Anthony Furlan; Heidi Roberts; Thomas Tomsick; Buddy Connors; John Barr; William Dillon; Steven Warach; Joseph Broderick; Barbara Tilley; David Sacks Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver; Chelsea S Kidwell; Y Pierre Gobin; Helmi L Lutsep; Gary M Nesbit; Thomas Grobelny; Marilyn M Rymer; Isaac E Silverman; Randall T Higashida; Ronald F Budzik; Michael P Marks Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-06-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: P D Schellinger; J B Fiebach; O Jansen; P A Ringleb; A Mohr; T Steiner; S Heiland; S Schwab; O Pohlers; H Ryssel; B Orakcioglu; K Sartor; W Hacke Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Pooja Khatri; Joddi Neff; Joseph P Broderick; Jane C Khoury; Janice Carrozzella; Thomas Tomsick Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Y Pierre Gobin; Sidney Starkman; Gary R Duckwiler; Thomas Grobelny; Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; John Pile-Spellman; Alan Segal; Fernando Vinuela; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-10-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Jeffrey Saver; Ronald Budzik; Gary Duckwiler; David S Liebeskind; Helmi L Lutsep; Marilyn M Rymer; Randall T Higashida; Sidney Starkman; Y Pierre Gobin; Donald Frei; Thomas Grobelny; Frank Hellinger; Dan Huddle; Chelsea Kidwell; Walter Koroshetz; Michael Marks; Gary Nesbit; Isaac E Silverman Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: W Hacke; M Kaste; C Fieschi; D Toni; E Lesaffre; R von Kummer; G Boysen; E Bluhmki; G Höxter; M H Mahagne Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Zhong-Song Shi; David S Liebeskind; Yince Loh; Jeffrey L Saver; Sidney Starkman; Paul M Vespa; Nestor R Gonzalez; Satoshi Tateshima; Reza Jahan; Lei Feng; Chad Miller; Latisha K Ali; Bruce Ovbiagele; Doojin Kim; Gary R Duckwiler; Fernando Viñuela Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Raul G Nogueira; Helmi L Lutsep; Rishi Gupta; Tudor G Jovin; Gregory W Albers; Gary A Walker; David S Liebeskind; Wade S Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Zhong-Song Shi; Gary R Duckwiler; Yince Loh; David S Liebeskind; Nestor R Gonzalez; Satoshi Tateshima; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey L Saver; Fernando Viñuela Journal: CNS Neurosci Ther Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 5.243