C Dargazanli1, A Consoli2, M Barral3, J Labreuche4, H Redjem3, G Ciccio3, S Smajda3, J P Desilles3, G Taylor5, C Preda6, O Coskun2, G Rodesch2, M Piotin3, R Blanc3, B Lapergue7. 1. From the Departments of Interventional Neuroradiology (C.D., M.B., H.R., G.C., S.S., J.P.D., M.P., R.B.) c.dargazanli@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (A.C., O.C., G.R.). 3. From the Departments of Interventional Neuroradiology (C.D., M.B., H.R., G.C., S.S., J.P.D., M.P., R.B.). 4. Department of Biostatistics (J.L.), University of Lille, Epidémiologie et Qualité des Soins, Lille, France. 5. Anesthesiology and Reanimation (G.T.), Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France. 6. Laboratoire de Mathématiques Paul Painlevé (C.P.), Lille, France. 7. Division of Neurology, Stroke Center (B.L.), Foch Hospital, Université Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Suresnes, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The TICI score is widely used to evaluate cerebral perfusion before and after the endovascular treatment of stroke. Recent studies showing the effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy combine modified TICI 2b and modified TICI 3 to assess the technical success of endovascular treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine how much clinical outcomes differ between patients achieving modified TICI 2b and modified TICI 3 reperfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 222 consecutive patients with acute large intracranial artery occlusion of the anterior circulation having achieved modified TICI 2b or modified TICI 3 reperfusion after thrombectomy. The primary end point was the rate of favorable outcome defined as the achievement of a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 3 months. RESULTS: Patients with modified TICI 3 more often had favorable collateral circulation and atherosclerosis etiology, with a shorter time from onset to reperfusion than patients with modified TICI 2b (all P < .05). The number of total passes to achieve reperfusion was higher in the modified TICI 2b group (median, 2; interquartile range, 1-3, 1-9) versus (median, 1; interquartile range, 1-2, 1-8) in the modified TICI 3 group (P = .0002). Favorable outcome was reached more often for patients with modified TICI 3 than for those with modified TICI 2b (71.7% versus 50.5%, P = .001), with a similar difference when considering excellent outcome. In addition, patients with modified TICI 3 had a lower intracerebral hemorrhage rate (23.0% versus 45.0%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with modified TICI 3 reperfusion have better functional outcomes than those with modified TICI 2b. Given the improving reperfusion rates obtained with thrombectomy devices, future thrombectomy trials should consider modified TICI 2b and modified TICI 3 status separately.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The TICI score is widely used to evaluate cerebral perfusion before and after the endovascular treatment of stroke. Recent studies showing the effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy combine modified TICI 2b and modified TICI 3 to assess the technical success of endovascular treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine how much clinical outcomes differ between patients achieving modified TICI 2b and modified TICI 3 reperfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 222 consecutive patients with acute large intracranial artery occlusion of the anterior circulation having achieved modified TICI 2b or modified TICI 3 reperfusion after thrombectomy. The primary end point was the rate of favorable outcome defined as the achievement of a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 3 months. RESULTS:Patients with modified TICI 3 more often had favorable collateral circulation and atherosclerosis etiology, with a shorter time from onset to reperfusion than patients with modified TICI 2b (all P < .05). The number of total passes to achieve reperfusion was higher in the modified TICI 2b group (median, 2; interquartile range, 1-3, 1-9) versus (median, 1; interquartile range, 1-2, 1-8) in the modified TICI 3 group (P = .0002). Favorable outcome was reached more often for patients with modified TICI 3 than for those with modified TICI 2b (71.7% versus 50.5%, P = .001), with a similar difference when considering excellent outcome. In addition, patients with modified TICI 3 had a lower intracerebral hemorrhage rate (23.0% versus 45.0%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with modified TICI 3 reperfusion have better functional outcomes than those with modified TICI 2b. Given the improving reperfusion rates obtained with thrombectomy devices, future thrombectomy trials should consider modified TICI 2b and modified TICI 3 status separately.
Authors: Xinyi Leng; Hui Fang; Thomas W H Leung; Chen Mao; Yuming Xu; Zhongrong Miao; Liping Liu; K S Lawrence Wong; David S Liebeskind Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Firas Al-Ali; Anne Jefferson; Tom Barrow; Travis Cree; Susan Louis; Kim Luke; Kevin Major; Daniel Nemeth; Sandy Smoker; Sarah Walker Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Mohammed A Almekhlafi; Sachin Mishra; Jamsheed A Desai; Vivek Nambiar; Ondrej Volny; Ankur Goel; Muneer Eesa; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Mayank Goyal Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Albert J Yoo; Claus Z Simonsen; Shyam Prabhakaran; Zeshan A Chaudhry; Mohammad A Issa; Jennifer E Fugate; Italo Linfante; David S Liebeskind; Pooja Khatri; Tudor G Jovin; David F Kallmes; Guilherme Dabus; Osama O Zaidat Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-08-06 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: S Prothmann; B Friedrich; T Boeckh-Behrens; C Zimmer; J Kaesmacher; K Lucia; C Maegerlein Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Johannes Kaesmacher; Christian Maegerlein; Felix Zibold; Silke Wunderlich; Claus Zimmer; Benjamin Friedrich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian Maegerlein; Maria Teresa Berndt; Sebastian Mönch; Kornelia Kreiser; Tobias Boeckh-Behrens; Manuel Lehm; Silke Wunderlich; Claus Zimmer; Benjamin Friedrich Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Carmen Serna Candel; Marta Aguilar Pérez; Victoria Hellstern; Muhammad AlMatter; Hansjörg Bäzner; Hans Henkes Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: P F Xing; P F Yang; Z F Li; L Zhang; H J Shen; Y X Zhang; Y W Zhang; J M Liu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael P Marks; Jeremy J Heit; Maarten G Lansberg; Stephanie Kemp; Soren Christensen; Colin P Derdeyn; Peter A Rasmussen; Osama O Zaidat; Joseph P Broderick; Sharon D Yeatts; Scott Hamilton; Michael Mlynash; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Marion Boulanger; Bertrand Lapergue; Francis Turjman; Emmanuel Touzé; René Anxionnat; Serge Bracard; Michel Piotin; Benjamin Gory Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: M Mahmoudi; C Dargazanli; F Cagnazzo; I Derraz; C Arquizan; A Wacogne; J Labreuche; A Bonafe; D Sablot; P H Lefevre; G Gascou; N Gaillard; C Scott; V Costalat; I Mourand Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.825