R N Abdalla1,2,3, D R Cantrell1,2, A Shaibani1,2, M C Hurley1,2, B S Jahromi1,2, M B Potts1,2, S A Ansari4,5,2. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (R.N.A., D.R.C., A.S., M.C.H., B.S.J., M.B.P., S.A.A.). 2. Neurological Surgery (R.N.A., D.R.C., A.S., M.C.H., B.S.J., M.B.P., S.A.A.), Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Radiology (R.N.A.), Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. 4. From the Departments of Radiology (R.N.A., D.R.C., A.S., M.C.H., B.S.J., M.B.P., S.A.A.) s-ansari@northwestern.edu. 5. Neurology (S.A.A.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute stroke intervention refractory to mechanical thrombectomy may be due to underlying vessel wall pathology including intracranial atherosclerotic disease and intracranial arterial dissection or recalcitrant emboli. We studied the prevalence and etiology of refractory thrombectomy, the safety and efficacy of adjunctive interventions in a North American-based cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of refractory thrombectomy, defined as unsuccessful recanalization, vessel reocclusion in <72 hours, or required adjunctive antiplatelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, intracranial angioplasty and/or stenting to achieve and maintain reperfusion. Clinical and imaging criteria differentiated etiologies for refractory thrombectomy. Baseline demographics, cerebrovascular risk factors, technical/clinical outcomes, and procedural safety/complications were compared between refractory and standard thrombectomy groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of refractory thrombectomy. RESULTS: Refractory thrombectomy was identified in 25/302 cases (8.3%), correlated with diabetes (44% versus 22%, P = .02) as an independent predictor with OR = 2.72 (95% CI, 1.05-7.09; P = .04) and inversely correlated with atrial fibrillation (16% versus 45.7%, P = .005). Refractory etiologies were secondary to recalcitrant emboli (20%), intracranial atherosclerotic disease (60%), and/or intracranial arterial dissection (44%). Four (16%) patients were diagnosed with early vessel reocclusion, and 21 patients underwent adjunctive salvage interventions with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion alone (32%) or intracranial angioplasty and/or stenting (52%). There were no significant differences in TICI 2b/3 reperfusion efficacy (85.7% versus 90.9%, P = .48), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates (0% versus 9%, P = .24), favorable clinical outcomes (39.1% versus 48.3%, P = .51), or mortality (13% versus 28.3%, P = .14) versus standard thrombectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Refractory stroke thrombectomy is encountered in <10% of cases, independently associated with diabetes, and related to underlying vessel wall pathology (intracranial atherosclerotic disease and/or intracranial arterial dissection) or, less commonly, recalcitrant emboli. Emergent salvage interventions with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors or intracranial angioplasty and/or stenting are safe and effective adjunctive treatments.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute stroke intervention refractory to mechanical thrombectomy may be due to underlying vessel wall pathology including intracranial atherosclerotic disease and intracranial arterial dissection or recalcitrant emboli. We studied the prevalence and etiology of refractory thrombectomy, the safety and efficacy of adjunctive interventions in a North American-based cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of refractory thrombectomy, defined as unsuccessful recanalization, vessel reocclusion in <72 hours, or required adjunctive antiplatelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, intracranial angioplasty and/or stenting to achieve and maintain reperfusion. Clinical and imaging criteria differentiated etiologies for refractory thrombectomy. Baseline demographics, cerebrovascular risk factors, technical/clinical outcomes, and procedural safety/complications were compared between refractory and standard thrombectomy groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of refractory thrombectomy. RESULTS: Refractory thrombectomy was identified in 25/302 cases (8.3%), correlated with diabetes (44% versus 22%, P = .02) as an independent predictor with OR = 2.72 (95% CI, 1.05-7.09; P = .04) and inversely correlated with atrial fibrillation (16% versus 45.7%, P = .005). Refractory etiologies were secondary to recalcitrant emboli (20%), intracranial atherosclerotic disease (60%), and/or intracranial arterial dissection (44%). Four (16%) patients were diagnosed with early vessel reocclusion, and 21 patients underwent adjunctive salvage interventions with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion alone (32%) or intracranial angioplasty and/or stenting (52%). There were no significant differences in TICI 2b/3 reperfusion efficacy (85.7% versus 90.9%, P = .48), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates (0% versus 9%, P = .24), favorable clinical outcomes (39.1% versus 48.3%, P = .51), or mortality (13% versus 28.3%, P = .14) versus standard thrombectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Refractory stroke thrombectomy is encountered in <10% of cases, independently associated with diabetes, and related to underlying vessel wall pathology (intracranial atherosclerotic disease and/or intracranial arterial dissection) or, less commonly, recalcitrant emboli. Emergent salvage interventions with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors or intracranial angioplasty and/or stenting are safe and effective adjunctive treatments.
Authors: Chirag D Gandhi; Ketan R Bulsara; Johanna Fifi; Tareq Kass-Hout; Ryan A Grant; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Joey English; Philip M Meyers; Todd Abruzzo; Charles J Prestigiacomo; Ciaran James Powers; Seon-Kyu Lee; Barbara Albani; Huy M Do; Clifford J Eskey; Athos Patsalides; Steven Hetts; M Shazam Hussain; Sameer A Ansari; Joshua A Hirsch; Michael Kelly; Peter Rasmussen; William Mack; G Lee Pride; Michael J Alexander; Mahesh V Jayaraman Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Matthew B Potts; Lucas da Matta; Ramez N Abdalla; Ali Shaibani; Sameer A Ansari; Babak S Jahromi; Michael C Hurley Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: S A Ansari; M Darwish; R N Abdalla; D R Cantrell; A Shaibani; M C Hurley; B S Jahromi; M B Potts Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jin Soo Lee; Ji Man Hong; Kyu Sun Lee; Hong Il Suh; Andrew M Demchuk; Yang-Ha Hwang; Byung Moon Kim; Jong S Kim Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Kyle M Fargen; Aquilla S Turk; J Mocco; David S Liebeskind; Donald Frei; Andrew M Demchuk Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Osama O Zaidat; Thomas Wolfe; Syed I Hussain; John R Lynch; Rishi Gupta; Joanna Delap; Michel T Torbey; Brian-Fred Fitzsimmons Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Hong Il Suh; Ji Man Hong; Kyu Sun Lee; Miran Han; Jin Wook Choi; Jong S Kim; Andrew M Demchuk; Jin Soo Lee Journal: J Stroke Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 6.967
Authors: G Marnat; S Finistis; F Delvoye; I Sibon; J-P Desilles; M Mazighi; F Gariel; A Consoli; C Rosso; F Clarençon; M Elhorany; C Denier; V Chalumeau; J Caroff; L Veunac; F Bourdain; J Darcourt; J-M Olivot; R Bourcier; C Dargazanli; C Arquizan; S Richard; B Lapergue; B Gory Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.825