D Y Kim1,2, S H Baik3, C Jung1, J Y Kim2, S-G Han2, B J Kim2, J Kang2, H-J Bae2, J H Kim1. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (D.Y.K., S.H.B., C.J., J.H.K.). 2. Neurology (D.Y.K, J.Y.K, S.-G.H., B.J.K, J.K., H-.J.B), Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea. 3. From the Departments of Radiology (D.Y.K., S.H.B., C.J., J.H.K.) mdshbaik@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data on SAH after M2 mechanical thrombectomy are limited. We aimed to determine the prevalence of sulcal SAH after mechanical thrombectomy for M2 occlusion, its associated predictors, and the resulting clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent mechanical thrombectomy for isolated M2 occlusion. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the presence of sulcal SAH after M2 mechanical thrombectomy. Angiographic and clinical outcomes were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of sulcal SAH and unfavorable outcome (90-day mRS, 3-6). RESULTS: Of the 209 enrolled patients, sulcal SAH was observed in 33 (15.8%) patients. The sulcal SAH group showed a higher rate of distal M2 occlusion (69.7% versus 22.7%), a higher of rate of superior division occlusion (63.6% versus 43.8%), and a higher M2 angulation (median, 128° versus 106°) than the non-sulcal SAH group. Of the 33 sulcal SAH cases, 23 (66.7%) were covert without visible intraprocedural contrast extravasation. Distal M2 occlusion (OR, 12.04; 95% CI, 4.56-35.67; P < .001), superior division (OR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.43-11.26; P = .010), M2 angulation (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P < .001), and the number of passes (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.22-2.09; P < .001) were independent predictors of sulcal SAH. However, covert sulcal SAH was not associated with an unfavorable outcome (P = .830). CONCLUSIONS: After mechanical thrombectomy for M2 occlusion, sulcal SAH was not uncommon and occurred more frequently with distal M2 occlusion, superior division, acute M2 angulation, and multiple thrombectomy passes (≥3). The impact of covert sulcal SAH was mostly benign and was not associated with an unfavorable outcome.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data on SAH after M2 mechanical thrombectomy are limited. We aimed to determine the prevalence of sulcal SAH after mechanical thrombectomy for M2 occlusion, its associated predictors, and the resulting clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent mechanical thrombectomy for isolated M2 occlusion. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the presence of sulcal SAH after M2 mechanical thrombectomy. Angiographic and clinical outcomes were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of sulcal SAH and unfavorable outcome (90-day mRS, 3-6). RESULTS: Of the 209 enrolled patients, sulcal SAH was observed in 33 (15.8%) patients. The sulcal SAH group showed a higher rate of distal M2 occlusion (69.7% versus 22.7%), a higher of rate of superior division occlusion (63.6% versus 43.8%), and a higher M2 angulation (median, 128° versus 106°) than the non-sulcal SAH group. Of the 33 sulcal SAH cases, 23 (66.7%) were covert without visible intraprocedural contrast extravasation. Distal M2 occlusion (OR, 12.04; 95% CI, 4.56-35.67; P < .001), superior division (OR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.43-11.26; P = .010), M2 angulation (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P < .001), and the number of passes (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.22-2.09; P < .001) were independent predictors of sulcal SAH. However, covert sulcal SAH was not associated with an unfavorable outcome (P = .830). CONCLUSIONS: After mechanical thrombectomy for M2 occlusion, sulcal SAH was not uncommon and occurred more frequently with distal M2 occlusion, superior division, acute M2 angulation, and multiple thrombectomy passes (≥3). The impact of covert sulcal SAH was mostly benign and was not associated with an unfavorable outcome.
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Michael D Hill; Antoni Davalos; Yvo B W E M Roos; Bruce C V Campbell; Diederik W J Dippel; Francis Guillemin; Jeffrey L Saver; Aad van der Lugt; Andrew M Demchuk; Keith Muir; Scott Brown; Tudor Jovin; Peter Mitchell; Phil White; Serge Bracard; Mayank Goyal Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Dayu Teng; Jeffrey Scott Pannell; Robert C Rennert; Jieying Li; Yi-Shuan Li; Victor W Wong; Shu Chien; Alexander A Khalessi Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Carlos Pérez-García; Santiago Rosati; Carlos Gómez-Escalonilla; Juan Arrazola; Alfonso López-Frías; Eva González; Jon Fondevila; Pedro Vega; Eduardo Murias; Elvira Jimenez-Gomez; Isabel Bravo Rey; Juan Macho; Luis San Roman; Isabel Rodriguez Caamaño; Andres Julián Paipa; Sebastian Remollo; Yeray Aguilar Tejedor; Isabel Bermúdez-Coronel; Sarai Moliner; José Manuel Pumar; Saima Bashir; Josep Puig; Antonio López-Rueda; Jordi Blasco; Raul G Nogueira; Manuel Moreu Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 8.572
Authors: P Mitchell; I D Wilkinson; N Hoggard; M N Paley; D A Jellinek; T Powell; C Romanowski; T Hodgson; P D Griffiths Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: J M Coutinho; D S Liebeskind; L-A Slater; R G Nogueira; B W Baxter; E I Levy; A H Siddiqui; M Goyal; O O Zaidat; A Davalos; A Bonafé; R Jahan; J Gralla; J L Saver; V M Pereira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Perry P Ng; Theodore C Larson; Christopher W Nichols; Mark M Murray; Karen L Salzman; Richard H Smith Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Pasquale Mordasini; Mirjam R Heldner; Tomas Dobrocky; Eike I Piechowiak; Bastian Volbers; Nedelina Slavova; Johannes Kaesmacher; Thomas R Meinel; Marcel Arnold; Urs Fischer; Simon Jung; Jan Gralla Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 7.914