A Podlasek1,2,3, P S Dhillon2,3, G Jewett4, A Shahein4, M Goyal4,5, M Almekhlafi4,5. 1. From the Department of Neuroscience and Vascular Simulation (A.P.), School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK podlasek.a@gmail.com. 2. National Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre (A.P., P.S.D.), University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 3. Clinical Radiology (A.P., P.S.D.), Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Nottingham, UK. 4. Department of Clinical Neurosciences (G.J., A.S., M.G., M.A.), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 5. Department of Radiology (M.G., M.A.), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balloon guide catheters are increasingly used to improve clot retrieval by temporarily stopping proximal blood flow during endovascular thrombectomy. PURPOSE: Our aim was to provide a summary of the literature comparing the procedural and clinical outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy with or without balloon guide catheters, depending on the first-line technique used. DATA SOURCES: We used PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: We chose studies that compared using balloon guide catheters with not using them. DATA ANALYSIS: Random effects meta-analysis was performed to compare the procedural outcomes measured as the first-pass effect, successful reperfusion, number of passes, procedural duration, arterial puncture to reperfusion time, distal emboli, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, a meta-analysis of 16 studies (5507 patients, 50.8% treated with balloon guide catheters and 49.2% without them) shows that the use of balloon guide catheters increases the odds of achieving a first-pass effect (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.34-2.76; P < .001), successful reperfusion (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.42-2.40; P < .001), and good functional outcome (OR =1.48; 95% CI, 1.27-1.73; P < .001). Balloon guide catheters reduce the number of passes (mean difference = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.04; P = .02), procedural time (mean difference = -19.73; 95% CI, -34.63 to -4.83; P = .009), incidence of distal or new territory emboli (OR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26-0.98; P = .04), and mortality (OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85; P < .001). Similar benefits of balloon guide catheters are observed when the first-line technique was a stent retriever or contact aspiration, but not for a combined approach. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was based on nonrandomized trials with a moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature suggests improved clinical and procedural outcomes associated with the use of balloon guide catheters during endovascular thrombectomy, especially when using the first-line stent retriever.
BACKGROUND: Balloon guide catheters are increasingly used to improve clot retrieval by temporarily stopping proximal blood flow during endovascular thrombectomy. PURPOSE: Our aim was to provide a summary of the literature comparing the procedural and clinical outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy with or without balloon guide catheters, depending on the first-line technique used. DATA SOURCES: We used PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: We chose studies that compared using balloon guide catheters with not using them. DATA ANALYSIS: Random effects meta-analysis was performed to compare the procedural outcomes measured as the first-pass effect, successful reperfusion, number of passes, procedural duration, arterial puncture to reperfusion time, distal emboli, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, a meta-analysis of 16 studies (5507 patients, 50.8% treated with balloon guide catheters and 49.2% without them) shows that the use of balloon guide catheters increases the odds of achieving a first-pass effect (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.34-2.76; P < .001), successful reperfusion (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.42-2.40; P < .001), and good functional outcome (OR =1.48; 95% CI, 1.27-1.73; P < .001). Balloon guide catheters reduce the number of passes (mean difference = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.04; P = .02), procedural time (mean difference = -19.73; 95% CI, -34.63 to -4.83; P = .009), incidence of distal or new territory emboli (OR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26-0.98; P = .04), and mortality (OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85; P < .001). Similar benefits of balloon guide catheters are observed when the first-line technique was a stent retriever or contact aspiration, but not for a combined approach. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was based on nonrandomized trials with a moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature suggests improved clinical and procedural outcomes associated with the use of balloon guide catheters during endovascular thrombectomy, especially when using the first-line stent retriever.
Authors: Thanh N Nguyen; Alicia C Castonguay; Raul G Nogueira; Diogo C Haussen; Joey D English; Sudhakar R Satti; Jennifer Chen; Hamed Farid; Candace Borders; Erol Veznedaroglu; Mandy J Binning; Ajit S Puri; Nirav A Vora; Ron F Budzik; Guilherme Dabus; Italo Linfante; Vallabh Janardhan; Amer Alshekhlee; Michael G Abraham; Randall C Edgell; M Asif Taqi; Ramy El Khoury; Maxim Mokin; Aniel Q Majjhoo; Mouhammed R Kabbani; Michael T Froehler; Ira Finch; Sameer A Ansari; Roberta Novakovic; Mohamad Abdalkader; Osama O Zaidat Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Ryan A McTaggart; Eric L Tung; Shadi Yaghi; Shawna M Cutting; Morgan Hemendinger; Heather I Gale; Grayson L Baird; Richard A Haas; Mahesh V Jayaraman Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Waleed Brinjikji; Robert M Starke; M Hassan Murad; David Fiorella; Vitor M Pereira; Mayank Goyal; David F Kallmes Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Christopher T Primiani; Angel Chinea Vicente; Michael T Brannick; Aquilla S Turk; J Mocco; Elad I Levy; Adnan H Siddiqui; Maxim Mokin Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Ali Alawieh; Jan Vargas; Kyle M Fargen; E Farris Langley; Robert M Starke; Reade De Leacy; Rano Chatterjee; Ansaar Rai; Travis Dumont; Peter Kan; David McCarthy; Fábio A Nascimento; Jasmeet Singh; Lukas Vilella; Aquilla Turk; Alejandro M Spiotta Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Raphaël Blanc; Simon Escalard; Humain Baharvadhat; Jean Philippe Desilles; William Boisseau; Robert Fahed; Hocine Redjem; Gabriele Ciccio; Stanislas Smajda; Benjamin Maier; François Delvoye; Solène Hebert; Mikael Mazighi; Michel Piotin Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 3.166
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