Joaquin Penide1, Mahmood Mirza2, Ray McCarthy2, Jens Fiehler3, Pasquale Mordasini4, Patrick Delassus5, Liam Morris5, Michael Gilvarry2. 1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, MET Gateway, Galway, Ireland. joaquin.penide@gmit.ie. 2. Galway Neuro Technology Centre, Cerenovus, Galway, Ireland. 3. Klinik und Poliklinik fur Neuroradiologische Diagnostik und Intervention, Universitatsklinikum Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, MET Gateway, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In acute ischemic stroke for large vessel occlusions, delayed or failed access to intracranial occlusions has a negative impact on procedural and clinical outcomes. The aim of this review is to identify and quantify access failures and challenges in mechanical thrombectomy. METHODS: A systematic literature review of PubMed and Scopus databases from January 2014 to October 2020 was performed. Articles reporting consecutive patients were used to calculate a crude failure rate of femoral and alternative accesses. RESULTS: A total of 50 articles met the inclusion criteria, totalling 12,838 interventions. Failure to access the occlusion through transfemoral access occurred in 4.4% of patients, most commonly due to challenging supra-aortic vessel anatomy, decreasing to 3.6% when all alternative access routes were attempted. Failed access from alternative routes (direct carotid, radial and brachial approaches) attempted first-line or after failed femoral attempt were reported in 7.3% of patients. The occurrence rate of potentially challenging features (anatomical, diseases or others) ranged from 4.7% to 47.4%, primarily impacting the access time, procedure time, recanalization and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Failure to access the occlusion is a significant contributor to failed recanalization, regardless of access routes. Challenging, but eventually successful access is also a relevant factor in procedural and clinical outcomes; however challenging access requires a universal definition to enable quantification, so that methods for procedural optimization can be critically assessed.
PURPOSE: In acute ischemic stroke for large vessel occlusions, delayed or failed access to intracranial occlusions has a negative impact on procedural and clinical outcomes. The aim of this review is to identify and quantify access failures and challenges in mechanical thrombectomy. METHODS: A systematic literature review of PubMed and Scopus databases from January 2014 to October 2020 was performed. Articles reporting consecutive patients were used to calculate a crude failure rate of femoral and alternative accesses. RESULTS: A total of 50 articles met the inclusion criteria, totalling 12,838 interventions. Failure to access the occlusion through transfemoral access occurred in 4.4% of patients, most commonly due to challenging supra-aortic vessel anatomy, decreasing to 3.6% when all alternative access routes were attempted. Failed access from alternative routes (direct carotid, radial and brachial approaches) attempted first-line or after failed femoral attempt were reported in 7.3% of patients. The occurrence rate of potentially challenging features (anatomical, diseases or others) ranged from 4.7% to 47.4%, primarily impacting the access time, procedure time, recanalization and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Failure to access the occlusion is a significant contributor to failed recanalization, regardless of access routes. Challenging, but eventually successful access is also a relevant factor in procedural and clinical outcomes; however challenging access requires a universal definition to enable quantification, so that methods for procedural optimization can be critically assessed.
Authors: Marius Hornung; Stefan C Bertog; Iris Grunwald; Kolja Sievert; Philipp Sudholt; Markus Reinartz; Laura Vaskelyte; Ilona Hofmann; Horst Sievert Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 11.195
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: J Wareham; A Goswami; S Renowden; O Martinovic; D Shatti; K Phan; R Crossley; A Mortimer Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Marc Ribo; Alan Flores; Marta Rubiera; Jorge Pagola; Nuno Mendonca; David Rodriguez-Luna; Soco Piñeiro; Pilar Meler; Jose Alvarez-Sabin; Carlos A Molina Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: J Kaesmacher; J Gralla; P J Mosimann; F Zibold; M R Heldner; E Piechowiak; T Dobrocky; M Arnold; U Fischer; P Mordasini Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dominik M Heider; Andreas Simgen; Gudrun Wagenpfeil; Philipp Dietrich; Umut Yilmaz; Ruben Mühl-Benninghaus; Safwan Roumia; Klaus Faßbender; Wolfgang Reith; Michael Kettner Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 3.307