Nimer Adeeb1, Christoph J Griessenauer1, Justin M Moore1, Paul M Foreman1, Hussain Shallwani1, Rouzbeh Motiei-Langroudi1, Raghav Gupta1, Carlos E Baccin1, Abdulrahman Alturki1, Mark R Harrigan1, Adnan H Siddiqui1, Elad I Levy1, Christopher S Ogilvy1, Ajith J Thomas2. 1. From the Neurosurgical Service, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (N.A., C.J.G., J.M.M., R.M.-L., R.G., A.A., C.S.O., A.J.T.); Department of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham (P.M.F., M.R.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, State University of New York at Buffalo (H.S., A.H.S., E.I.L.); and Department of Surgery, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil (C.E.B.). 2. From the Neurosurgical Service, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (N.A., C.J.G., J.M.M., R.M.-L., R.G., A.A., C.S.O., A.J.T.); Department of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham (P.M.F., M.R.H.); Department of Neurosurgery, State University of New York at Buffalo (H.S., A.H.S., E.I.L.); and Department of Surgery, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil (C.E.B.). athomas6@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intraprocedural thrombosis poses a formidable challenge during neuroendovascular procedures because the risks of aggressive thromboembolic treatment must be balanced against the risk of postprocedural hemorrhage. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of ischemic stroke after intraprocedural thrombosis after stent-assisted coiling and pipeline embolization device placement. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of intracranial aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling or pipeline embolization device placement between 2007 and 2016 at 4 major academic institutions was performed to identify procedures that were complicated by intraprocedural thrombosis. RESULTS: Intraprocedural thrombosis occurred in 34 (4.6%) procedures. Postprocedural ischemic stroke and hemorrhage occurred in 20.6% (7/34) and 11.8% (4/34) of procedures complicated by intraprocedural thrombosis, respectively. Current smoking was an independent predictor of ischemic stroke. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of ischemic stroke or postprocedural hemorrhage with the use of abciximab compared with the use of eptifibatide in treatment of intraprocedural thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Current protocols for treatment of intraprocedural thrombosis associated with placement of intra-arterial devices were effective in preventing ischemic stroke in ≈80% of cases. Current smoking was the only independent predictor of ischemic stroke.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intraprocedural thrombosis poses a formidable challenge during neuroendovascular procedures because the risks of aggressive thromboembolic treatment must be balanced against the risk of postprocedural hemorrhage. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of ischemic stroke after intraprocedural thrombosis after stent-assisted coiling and pipeline embolization device placement. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of intracranial aneurysms treated with stent-assisted coiling or pipeline embolization device placement between 2007 and 2016 at 4 major academic institutions was performed to identify procedures that were complicated by intraprocedural thrombosis. RESULTS: Intraprocedural thrombosis occurred in 34 (4.6%) procedures. Postprocedural ischemic stroke and hemorrhage occurred in 20.6% (7/34) and 11.8% (4/34) of procedures complicated by intraprocedural thrombosis, respectively. Current smoking was an independent predictor of ischemic stroke. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of ischemic stroke or postprocedural hemorrhage with the use of abciximab compared with the use of eptifibatide in treatment of intraprocedural thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Current protocols for treatment of intraprocedural thrombosis associated with placement of intra-arterial devices were effective in preventing ischemic stroke in ≈80% of cases. Current smoking was the only independent predictor of ischemic stroke.
Authors: Seyed Mohammad Seyedsaadat; Leonardo Rangel Castilla; Giuseppe Lanzino; Harry J Cloft; Daniel J Blezek; Amy Theiler; Ramanathan Kadirvel; Waleed Brinjikji; David F Kallmes Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2019-04-03
Authors: Edgar A Samaniego; Sudeepta Dandapat; Jorge A Roa; Mario Zanaty; Daichi Nakagawa; David M Hasan Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Sophia Hohenstatt; Christian Ulfert; Christian Herweh; Silvia Schönenberger; Jan C Purrucker; Martin Bendszus; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Dominik F Vollherbst Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: Li-Mei Lin; Bowen Jiang; Jessica K Campos; Narlin B Beaty; Matthew T Bender; Rafael J Tamargo; Judy Huang; Geoffrey P Colby; Alexander L Coon Journal: Interv Neurol Date: 2018-02-27
Authors: Bowen Jiang; Matthew T Bender; Erick M Westbroek; Jessica K Campos; Li-Mei Lin; Risheng Xu; Rafael J Tamargo; Judy Huang; Geoffrey P Colby; Alexander L Coon Journal: Stroke Vasc Neurol Date: 2018-04-21
Authors: Damian Kocur; Piotr Paździora; Nikodem Przybyłko; Wojciech Kukier; Jan Baron; Adam Rudnik Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 1.195