Reasons for Failed Mechanical Thrombectomy in Posterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke Patients.
Alternative vascular access
Intracranial stenting
Local thrombolysis
Mortality
Rescue strategies
Journal
Clinical neuroradiology
ISSN: 1869-1447
Titre abrégé: Clin Neuroradiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101526693
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
27
05
2020
accepted:
06
08
2020
pubmed:
8
9
2020
medline:
26
11
2021
entrez:
7
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine reasons for failed recanalization in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) of the posterior circulation. Retrospective single center analysis of reasons for MT failure in the posterior circulation. Failed MTs were categorized according to the reason for procedure failure in failed vascular access, failed passage of the target vessel occlusion and MT failure after passing the occluded target vessel. Patient characteristics were compared between failed and successful MT. Patients with failed MT (30/218 patients, 13.8%) were categorized into futile vascular access (13/30, 43.3%), abortive passage of the target vessel occlusion (6/30, 20.0%) and MT failure after passing the vessel occlusion (11/30, 36.7%). In 188/218 (86.2%) successful MTs alternative vascular access, local intra-arterial (i.a.) thrombolysis and emergency stent-assisted PTA prevented 65 MT failures. Patients with failed MT showed a higher NIHSS at discharge, a higher pc-ASPECTS in follow-up imaging, a higher mRS 90 days after stroke onset and a high mortality rate of 77.0% (mRS at 90 days, median (IQR): 6 (6-6) vs. 4 (2-6) for successful MT, p-value < 0.001). Co-morbidities and stroke etiology were not different compared to sufficient recanalization with atherosclerotic disease as the leading stroke etiology in both groups. Failure of MT in posterior circulation ischemic stroke patients is associated with a high mortality rate. Reasons for MT failure are diverse with futile vascular access and MT failure after passing the vessel occlusion as the leading causes. Alternative vascular access, local i.a. thrombolysis and stent-assisted PTA can prevent MT failure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To determine reasons for failed recanalization in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) of the posterior circulation.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective single center analysis of reasons for MT failure in the posterior circulation. Failed MTs were categorized according to the reason for procedure failure in failed vascular access, failed passage of the target vessel occlusion and MT failure after passing the occluded target vessel. Patient characteristics were compared between failed and successful MT.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Patients with failed MT (30/218 patients, 13.8%) were categorized into futile vascular access (13/30, 43.3%), abortive passage of the target vessel occlusion (6/30, 20.0%) and MT failure after passing the vessel occlusion (11/30, 36.7%). In 188/218 (86.2%) successful MTs alternative vascular access, local intra-arterial (i.a.) thrombolysis and emergency stent-assisted PTA prevented 65 MT failures. Patients with failed MT showed a higher NIHSS at discharge, a higher pc-ASPECTS in follow-up imaging, a higher mRS 90 days after stroke onset and a high mortality rate of 77.0% (mRS at 90 days, median (IQR): 6 (6-6) vs. 4 (2-6) for successful MT, p-value < 0.001). Co-morbidities and stroke etiology were not different compared to sufficient recanalization with atherosclerotic disease as the leading stroke etiology in both groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Failure of MT in posterior circulation ischemic stroke patients is associated with a high mortality rate. Reasons for MT failure are diverse with futile vascular access and MT failure after passing the vessel occlusion as the leading causes. Alternative vascular access, local i.a. thrombolysis and stent-assisted PTA can prevent MT failure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32894352
doi: 10.1007/s00062-020-00950-x
pii: 10.1007/s00062-020-00950-x
pmc: PMC8463404
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
745-752Informations de copyright
© 2020. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Neurol. 2015 Mar;77(3):415-24
pubmed: 25516154
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001 Sep;22(8):1534-42
pubmed: 11559501
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 Oct;21(9):1744-9
pubmed: 11039359
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Dec;11(12):1174-1180
pubmed: 31239331
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Oct;39(10):1848-1853
pubmed: 30166434
BMC Neurol. 2019 Dec 6;19(1):315
pubmed: 31810447
J Neurol. 2010 May;257(5):767-73
pubmed: 19943167
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Mar;41(3):464-468
pubmed: 32029470
J Neurointerv Surg. 2017 Oct;9(10):937-939
pubmed: 27634955
J Stroke. 2017 May;19(2):121-130
pubmed: 28592779
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2285-95
pubmed: 25882376
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;45(1-2):61-67
pubmed: 29393092
Eur Stroke J. 2016 Mar;1(1):41-50
pubmed: 31008266
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 May;11(5):439-442
pubmed: 30472671
Clin Neuroradiol. 2019 Sep;29(3):401-414
pubmed: 30895349
Stroke. 2017 Dec;48(12):3252-3257
pubmed: 29089457
Neuroradiol J. 2015 Apr;28(2):152-71
pubmed: 26156097
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1019-30
pubmed: 25671798
J Neurosurg. 2017 May;126(5):1578-1584
pubmed: 27257830
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 May;35(5):959-64
pubmed: 24287087
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1009-18
pubmed: 25671797
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017 Nov;60(6):635-643
pubmed: 29142622
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Jun;43(6):1145-54
pubmed: 16765230
Stroke. 2008 Sep;39(9):2485-90
pubmed: 18617663