PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment (ET) in occlusions of the M1- and proximal M2-segment of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) is an established procedure. In contrast, ET in distal M2-occlusions has not been sufficiently evaluated yet. The purpose of this study was to assess relevant parameters for clinical outcome, efficacy, and safety of patients undergoing ET in M1-, proximal M2-, and distal M2-occlusions. METHODS: One hundred seventy-four patients undergoing ET in acute ischemic stroke with an occlusion of the M1- or M2-segment of the MCA were enrolled prospectively. Non-parametric analysis of variance in 3-month mRS, TICI scale, and complication rates were performed with Kruskal-Wallis test between M1- and proximal and distal M2-occlusions. Subsequent pairwise group comparisons were calculated using Mann-Whitney U-tests. Binary logistic regression models were calculated for each occlusion site. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences in 3-month mRS, mTICI scale, or complication rates between M1- and M2-occlusions nor between proximal and distal M2-occlusions. Binary logistic regression in patients with M1-occlusions showed a substantial explanation of variance (NR2=0.35). NIHSS (p=0.009) and Maas Score as parameter for collateralization (p=0.01) appeared as significant contributing parameters. Binary logistic regression in M2-occlusions showed a high explanation of variance (NR2=0.50) of mRS but no significant factors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome and procedural safety of patients with M2-occlusions undergoing ET are comparable to those of patients with M1-occlusions. Clinical outcome of patients with M1-occlusions undergoing ET is primarily influenced by the initial neurological deficit and the collateralization of the occlusions. By contrast, clinical outcome in patients with M2-occlusions undergoing ET is more multifactorial.
PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment (ET) in occlusions of the M1- and proximal M2-segment of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) is an established procedure. In contrast, ET in distal M2-occlusions has not been sufficiently evaluated yet. The purpose of this study was to assess relevant parameters for clinical outcome, efficacy, and safety of patients undergoing ET in M1-, proximal M2-, and distal M2-occlusions. METHODS: One hundred seventy-four patients undergoing ET in acute ischemic stroke with an occlusion of the M1- or M2-segment of the MCA were enrolled prospectively. Non-parametric analysis of variance in 3-month mRS, TICI scale, and complication rates were performed with Kruskal-Wallis test between M1- and proximal and distal M2-occlusions. Subsequent pairwise group comparisons were calculated using Mann-Whitney U-tests. Binary logistic regression models were calculated for each occlusion site. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences in 3-month mRS, mTICI scale, or complication rates between M1- and M2-occlusions nor between proximal and distal M2-occlusions. Binary logistic regression in patients with M1-occlusions showed a substantial explanation of variance (NR2=0.35). NIHSS (p=0.009) and Maas Score as parameter for collateralization (p=0.01) appeared as significant contributing parameters. Binary logistic regression in M2-occlusions showed a high explanation of variance (NR2=0.50) of mRS but no significant factors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome and procedural safety of patients with M2-occlusions undergoing ET are comparable to those of patients with M1-occlusions. Clinical outcome of patients with M1-occlusions undergoing ET is primarily influenced by the initial neurological deficit and the collateralization of the occlusions. By contrast, clinical outcome in patients with M2-occlusions undergoing ET is more multifactorial.
Authors: Marius Georg Kaschner; Daniel Weiss; Christian Rubbert; John-Ih Lee; Michael Gliem; Sebastian Jander; Vivien Ivan; Bastian Kraus; Bernd Turowski; Julian Caspers Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Raul G Nogueira; Ashutosh P Jadhav; Diogo C Haussen; Alain Bonafe; Ronald F Budzik; Parita Bhuva; Dileep R Yavagal; Marc Ribo; Christophe Cognard; Ricardo A Hanel; Cathy A Sila; Ameer E Hassan; Monica Millan; Elad I Levy; Peter Mitchell; Michael Chen; Joey D English; Qaisar A Shah; Frank L Silver; Vitor M Pereira; Brijesh P Mehta; Blaise W Baxter; Michael G Abraham; Pedro Cardona; Erol Veznedaroglu; Frank R Hellinger; Lei Feng; Jawad F Kirmani; Demetrius K Lopes; Brian T Jankowitz; Michael R Frankel; Vincent Costalat; Nirav A Vora; Albert J Yoo; Amer M Malik; Anthony J Furlan; Marta Rubiera; Amin Aghaebrahim; Jean-Marc Olivot; Wondwossen G Tekle; Ryan Shields; Todd Graves; Roger J Lewis; Wade S Smith; David S Liebeskind; Jeffrey L Saver; Tudor G Jovin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T A Tomsick; J Carrozzella; L Foster; M D Hill; R von Kummer; M Goyal; A M Demchuk; P Khatri; Y Palesch; J P Broderick; S D Yeatts; D S Liebeskind Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tudor G Jovin; Angel Chamorro; Erik Cobo; María A de Miquel; Carlos A Molina; Alex Rovira; Luis San Román; Joaquín Serena; Sonia Abilleira; Marc Ribó; Mònica Millán; Xabier Urra; Pere Cardona; Elena López-Cancio; Alejandro Tomasello; Carlos Castaño; Jordi Blasco; Lucía Aja; Laura Dorado; Helena Quesada; Marta Rubiera; María Hernandez-Pérez; Mayank Goyal; Andrew M Demchuk; Rüdiger von Kummer; Miquel Gallofré; Antoni Dávalos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245