Switch Strategy from Direct Aspiration First Pass Technique to Solumbra Improves Technical Outcome in Endovascularly Treated Stroke.
aspiration
cerebrovascular
mechanical
outcome
stroke
thrombectomy
thrombolysis
treatment
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 03 2021
06 03 2021
Historique:
received:
05
02
2021
revised:
24
02
2021
accepted:
01
03
2021
entrez:
3
4
2021
pubmed:
4
4
2021
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The major endovascular mechanic thrombectomy (MT) techniques are: Stent-Retriever (SR), aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) and Solumbra (Aspiration + SR), which are interchangeable (defined as switching strategy (SS)). The purpose of this study is to report the added value of switching from ADAPT to Solumbra in unsuccessful revascularization stroke patients. This is a retrospective, single center, pragmatic, cohort study. From December 2017 to November 2019, 935 consecutive patients were admitted to the Stroke Unit and 176/935 (18.8%) were eligible for MT. In 135/176 (76.7%) patients, ADAPT was used as the first-line strategy. SS was defined as the difference between first technique adopted and the final technique. Revascularization was evaluated with modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (TICI) with success defined as mTICI ≥ 2b. Procedural time (PT) and time to reperfusion (TTR) were recorded. Stroke involved: Anterior circulation in 121/135 (89.6%) patients and posterior circulation in 14/135 (10.4%) patients. ADAPT was the most common first-line technique vs. both SR and Solumbra (135/176 (76.7%) vs. 10/176 (5.7%) vs. 31/176 (17.6%), respectively). In 28/135 (20.7%) patients, the mTICI was ≤ 2a requiring switch to Solumbra. The vessel's diameter positively predicted SS result (odd ratio (OR) 1.12, confidence of interval (CI) 95% 1.03-1.22; Successful revascularization was improved by 13.3% after switching form ADAPT to Solumbra (final mTICI ≥ 2b was 92.6%). Vessel's diameter positively predicted recourse to SS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The major endovascular mechanic thrombectomy (MT) techniques are: Stent-Retriever (SR), aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) and Solumbra (Aspiration + SR), which are interchangeable (defined as switching strategy (SS)). The purpose of this study is to report the added value of switching from ADAPT to Solumbra in unsuccessful revascularization stroke patients.
METHODS
This is a retrospective, single center, pragmatic, cohort study. From December 2017 to November 2019, 935 consecutive patients were admitted to the Stroke Unit and 176/935 (18.8%) were eligible for MT. In 135/176 (76.7%) patients, ADAPT was used as the first-line strategy. SS was defined as the difference between first technique adopted and the final technique. Revascularization was evaluated with modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (TICI) with success defined as mTICI ≥ 2b. Procedural time (PT) and time to reperfusion (TTR) were recorded.
RESULTS
Stroke involved: Anterior circulation in 121/135 (89.6%) patients and posterior circulation in 14/135 (10.4%) patients. ADAPT was the most common first-line technique vs. both SR and Solumbra (135/176 (76.7%) vs. 10/176 (5.7%) vs. 31/176 (17.6%), respectively). In 28/135 (20.7%) patients, the mTICI was ≤ 2a requiring switch to Solumbra. The vessel's diameter positively predicted SS result (odd ratio (OR) 1.12, confidence of interval (CI) 95% 1.03-1.22;
CONCLUSION
Successful revascularization was improved by 13.3% after switching form ADAPT to Solumbra (final mTICI ≥ 2b was 92.6%). Vessel's diameter positively predicted recourse to SS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33800902
pii: ijerph18052670
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052670
pmc: PMC7967538
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Radiol Med. 2015 Jul;120(7):655-61
pubmed: 25652155
J Neurosurg. 2020 Jan 24;:1-9
pubmed: 31978878
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;42(3-4):170-7
pubmed: 27111086
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 4;9(3):e014899
pubmed: 31973604
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
J Stroke. 2019 Jan;21(1):2-9
pubmed: 30732438
J Neuroradiol. 2019 Sep 26;:
pubmed: 31563590
J Neurol. 2020 Oct 29;:
pubmed: 33123777
Stroke. 2017 Jun;48(6):1588-1593
pubmed: 28428348
JAMA. 2017 Aug 1;318(5):443-452
pubmed: 28763550
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Oct;11(10):979-983
pubmed: 30842306
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Oct;11(10):1055-1062
pubmed: 31103994
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013 Apr;155(4):635-41
pubmed: 23435866
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 Mar;42(3):546-550
pubmed: 33478941
JAMA Neurol. 2016 Feb;73(2):190-6
pubmed: 26716735
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Feb;29(2):104542
pubmed: 31836359
Stroke. 2013 Dec;44(12):3577-9
pubmed: 24021683
J Neurosurg. 2018 Feb;128(2):567-574
pubmed: 28409731
J Neurointerv Surg. 2017 Feb;9(2):142-146
pubmed: 27102198
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110
pubmed: 29367334
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020 Dec;43(12):1865-1867
pubmed: 32975601
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Oct;37(10):1860-1865
pubmed: 27256852
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Jul;10(Suppl 1):i20-i25
pubmed: 30037948
Lancet. 2019 Mar 9;393(10175):998-1008
pubmed: 30860055
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Feb 26;:
pubmed: 30808653
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Sep;24(9):1273-9
pubmed: 23973019
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Stroke. 2019 Dec;50(12):e344-e418
pubmed: 31662037
J Stroke. 2019 Jan;21(1):10-22
pubmed: 30732439