Literature DB >> 30472676

Equal performance of aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy in daily stroke treatment.

Marie Louise Elisabeth Bernsen1, Robert-Jan Berend Goldhoorn2, Robert J van Oostenbrugge2, Wim H van Zwam3, Maarten Uyttenboogaart4,5, Yvo B W E M Roos6, Jeannette Hofmeijer7, Jasper M Martens1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers has proved to be safe and effective in endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Direct aspiration has shown revascularization rates comparable to those of stent retrievers in the recent ASTER and COMPASS trials. However, the efficacy of aspiration in routine clinical practice has not yet been shown.
OBJECTIVE: To show that aspiration has clinical and technical outcomes equal to those of stent retriever thrombectomy in daily clinical practice.
METHODS: We analysed data of patients with a large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation registered in the Dutch MR CLEAN Registry between March 2014 and June 2016. Primary outcome was functional outcome measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Secondary outcomes were reperfusion grade, periprocedural complication rate, and procedure duration. Association of treatment technique with functional outcome was estimated with univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis and expressed as a common OR (cOR) for a shift towards better outcome on the mRS.
RESULTS: As first-line treatment, 207 of 1175 patients (17.6%) were treated with direct aspiration, and 968 (82.4%) by a stent retriever. We observed no differences in functional outcome (adjusted cOR=1.020 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.52)) and periprocedural complications. Successful reperfusion (extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction ≥2b) was similar. Duration of the procedure was shorter with aspiration (57 min (IQR 35-73) vs 70 min (IQR 47-95), p<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Direct aspiration shows clinical outcomes equal to those of stent retriever thrombectomy in our large multicenter real-life cohort. We found no difference in complication rates and shorter procedure times for aspiration. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  device; stroke; technique; thrombectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30472676     DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurointerv Surg        ISSN: 1759-8478            Impact factor:   5.836


  4 in total

Review 1.  A direct aspiration first-pass technique (ADAPT) versus stent retriever for acute ischemic stroke (AIS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yichi Zhang; Yue Zhang; Chentao Hu; Weisong Zhao; Zhaohui Zhang; Wenqiang Li
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 6.682

2.  Current status of aspiration thrombectomy for acute stroke patients in China: data from ANGEL-ACT Registry.

Authors:  Xu Tong; Yilong Wang; Clayton T Bauer; Baixue Jia; Xuelei Zhang; Xiaochuan Huo; Gang Luo; Anxin Wang; Ning Ma; Feng Gao; Dapeng Mo; Ligang Song; Xuan Sun; Lian Liu; Yiming Deng; Xiaoqing Li; Bo Wang; Gaoting Ma; Yongjun Wang; Zeguang Ren; Zhongrong Miao
Journal:  Ther Adv Neurol Disord       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 6.570

Review 3.  Should the direct aspiration first pass technique be advocated over the stent-retriever technique for acute ischemic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 7692 patients.

Authors:  Ahmed Negida; Hazem S Ghaith; Mohamed Diaa Gabra; Mohamed Abdelalem Aziz; Mohamed Elfil; Haider Al-Shami; Eshak I Bahbah; Ulrick Sidney Kanmounye; Ignatius Esene; Ahmed M Raslan
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2021-12-08

4.  Comparison of First-Pass Effect in Aspiration vs. Stent-Retriever for Acute Intracranial ICA Occlusion.

Authors:  David Hernández; Elena Serrano; Gemma Molins; Federico Zarco; Oscar Chirife; Mariano Werner; Blanca Lara; Anna Ramos; Laura Llull; Manuel Requena; Marta de Dios Las Cuevas; Sebastián Remollo; Carlos Piñana; Antonio López-Rueda
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.086

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.