BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy has been proven effective for the treatment of large vessel occlusion strokes (LVOS). However, the feasibility and potential benefits of repeat thrombectomy for recurrent stroke is unclear. We aim to report our experience with repeat thrombectomy for recurrent LVOS. METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively collected endovascular database for patients who underwent repeated mechanical thrombectomy. Baseline characteristics, procedural data and outcomes were evaluated. Patients with repeat thrombectomy were compared to patients with single thrombectomy. For patients with repeat thrombectomy, imaging and procedural variables were compared between first and last procedures. RESULTS: Out of 697 patients treated within the study period, 15 patients (2%) had repeat thrombectomies (14 treated twice and one thrice). The mean age was 63 ± 15 years and 40% were males. The median time between the first and last procedure was 18 (1-278) days. Cardioembolism (66%) was the most common etiology, followed by intracranial atherosclerosis (13%) and large vessel atherosclerosis (6%). At 90 days after the last thrombectomy, 60% of patients achieved a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 and 20% were deceased. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, stroke severity, time from last known normal to puncture, reperfusion rates, hemorrhagic complications, good clinical outcomes and mortality between patients who underwent repeat thrombectomy and those who had a single thrombectomy. CONCLUSION: In properly selected patients suffering recurrent LVOS, repeated mechanical thrombectomy appears to be feasible and safe. A previous thrombectomy should not discourage aggressive treatment as these patients may achieve similar rates of good clinical outcomes as those who undergo single thrombectomy.
BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy has been proven effective for the treatment of large vessel occlusion strokes (LVOS). However, the feasibility and potential benefits of repeat thrombectomy for recurrent stroke is unclear. We aim to report our experience with repeat thrombectomy for recurrent LVOS. METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively collected endovascular database for patients who underwent repeated mechanical thrombectomy. Baseline characteristics, procedural data and outcomes were evaluated. Patients with repeat thrombectomy were compared to patients with single thrombectomy. For patients with repeat thrombectomy, imaging and procedural variables were compared between first and last procedures. RESULTS: Out of 697 patients treated within the study period, 15 patients (2%) had repeat thrombectomies (14 treated twice and one thrice). The mean age was 63 ± 15 years and 40% were males. The median time between the first and last procedure was 18 (1-278) days. Cardioembolism (66%) was the most common etiology, followed by intracranial atherosclerosis (13%) and large vessel atherosclerosis (6%). At 90 days after the last thrombectomy, 60% of patients achieved a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 and 20% were deceased. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, stroke severity, time from last known normal to puncture, reperfusion rates, hemorrhagic complications, good clinical outcomes and mortality between patients who underwent repeat thrombectomy and those who had a single thrombectomy. CONCLUSION: In properly selected patients suffering recurrent LVOS, repeated mechanical thrombectomy appears to be feasible and safe. A previous thrombectomy should not discourage aggressive treatment as these patients may achieve similar rates of good clinical outcomes as those who undergo single thrombectomy.
Authors: Roland Sauer; Hagen B Huttner; Lorenz Breuer; Tobias Engelhorn; Peter D Schellinger; Stefan Schwab; Martin Köhrmann Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Mitchell; Andrew M Demchuk; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Maria A de Miquel; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Alain Bonafe; Reza Jahan; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lucie A van den Berg; Elad I Levy; Olvert A Berkhemer; Vitor M Pereira; Jeremy Rempel; Mònica Millán; Stephen M Davis; Daniel Roy; John Thornton; Luis San Román; Marc Ribó; Debbie Beumer; Bruce Stouch; Scott Brown; Bruce C V Campbell; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Wade S Smith; Michael H Lev; Joey D English; Erica C Camargo; Maggie Chou; S Claiborne Johnston; Gilberto Gonzalez; Pamela W Schaefer; William P Dillon; Walter J Koroshetz; Karen L Furie Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Han Soo Yoo; Young Dae Kim; Hye Sun Lee; Dongbeom Song; Tae Jin Song; Byung Moon Kim; Dong Joon Kim; Dong Ik Kim; Ji Hoe Heo; Hyo Suk Nam Journal: J Stroke Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 6.967
Authors: Andrej Klepanec; Jan Harsany; Jozef Haring; Miroslav Mako; Matus Hoferica; Matej Rusina; Juraj Cisar; Georgi Krastev Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: B Ikenberg; J Rösler; C L Seifert; S Wunderlich; J Kaesmacher; C Zimmer; T Boeckh-Behrens; B Friedrich; C Maegerlein Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Mehdi Abbasi; Sean Fitzgerald; Jennifer Ayers-Ringler; Virginia Espina; Claudius Mueller; Sally Rucker; Ramanathan Kadirvel; David Kallmes; Waleed Brinjikji Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-02-22