Middle Cerebral Artery M2 Thrombectomy: Safety and Technical Considerations in the German Stroke Registry (GSR).

M2 aspiration distal occlusion endovascular therapy mechanical thrombectomy outcome stent retriever

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Aug 2022
Historique:
received: 27 06 2022
revised: 05 08 2022
accepted: 05 08 2022
entrez: 12 8 2022
pubmed: 13 8 2022
medline: 13 8 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

There is ongoing debate concerning the safety and efficacy of various mechanical thrombectomy (MT) approaches for M2 occlusions. We compared these for MT in M2 versus M1 occlusions. Subgroup analyses of different technical approaches within the M2 MT cohort were also performed. Patients were included from the German Stroke Registry (GSR), a multicenter registry of consecutive MT patients. Primary outcomes were reperfusion success events. Secondary outcomes were early clinical improvement (improvement in NIHSS score > 4) and independent survival at 90 days (mRS 0−2). Out of 3804 patients, 2689 presented with M1 (71%) and 1115 with isolated M2 occlusions (29%). The mean age was 76 (CI 65−82) and 77 (CI 66−83) years, respectively. Except for baseline NIHSS (15 (CI 10−18) vs. 11 (CI 6−16), p < 0.001) and ASPECTS (9 (CI 7−10) vs. 9 (CI 8−10, p < 0.001), baseline demographics were balanced. Apart from a more frequent use of dedicated small vessel stent retrievers (svSR) in M2 (17.4% vs. 3.0; p < 0.001), intraprocedural aspects were balanced. There was no difference in ICH at 24 h (11%; p = 1.0), adverse events (14.4% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.63), clinical improvement (62.5% vs. 61.4 %; p = 0.57), mortality (26.9% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.23). In M2 MT, conventional stent retriever (cSR) achieved higher rates of mTICI3 (54.0% vs. 37.7−42.0%; p < 0.001), requiring more MT-maneuvers (7, CI 2−8) vs. 2 (CI 2−7)/(CI 2−2); p < 0.001) and without impact on efficacy and outcome. Real-life MT in M2 can be performed with equal safety and efficacy as in M1 occlusions. Different recanalization techniques including the use of svSR did not result in significant differences regarding safety, efficacy and outcome.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35956233
pii: jcm11154619
doi: 10.3390/jcm11154619
pmc: PMC9369518
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Stroke. 2018 Feb;49(2):461-464
pubmed: 29284735
Stroke. 2020 Sep;51(9):2872-2884
pubmed: 32757757
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Sep;13(9):779-783
pubmed: 33219148
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 May;14(5):
pubmed: 34045317
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Sep;29(9):105018
pubmed: 32807433
Clin Neuroradiol. 2022 Jan 6;:
pubmed: 34989817
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Jul;10(7):620-624
pubmed: 29127196
J Neurointerv Surg. 2016 Dec;8(12):1273-1277
pubmed: 26863104
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 May;14(5):
pubmed: 34035152
JAMA Neurol. 2014 Feb;71(2):151-7
pubmed: 24323077
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 May;14(5):
pubmed: 33972458
J Neuroradiol. 2019 Jul;46(4):231-237
pubmed: 30771378
Stroke. 2013 Sep;44(9):2650-63
pubmed: 23920012
J Neurointerv Surg. 2016 Mar;8(3):295-9
pubmed: 25948592
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 Jan 12;:
pubmed: 35022300
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 Apr;14(4):350-355
pubmed: 33947769
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Nov;11(11):1065-1069
pubmed: 30975736
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Jul;13(7):623-630
pubmed: 33637570
Stroke. 2014 Feb;45(2):444-9
pubmed: 24335227
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Nov;13(11):990-994
pubmed: 33443113
JAMA Neurol. 2016 Nov 01;73(11):1291-1296
pubmed: 27617425
Clin Neuroradiol. 2020 Sep;30(3):481-487
pubmed: 31338541
Int J Stroke. 2019 Jun;14(4):372-380
pubmed: 30346260
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1009-18
pubmed: 25671797
Clin Neuroradiol. 2017 Sep;27(3):351-360
pubmed: 26795038
Stroke. 2019 Mar;50(3):632-638
pubmed: 30726184
Stroke. 2019 Feb;50(2):419-427
pubmed: 31287757
Stroke. 2021 Nov;52(11):3490-3496
pubmed: 34311566
Interv Neuroradiol. 2020 Apr;26(2):178-186
pubmed: 31847643
Neurology. 2016 Feb 23;86(8):762-70
pubmed: 26802090
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Stroke. 2019 Sep;50(9):2500-2506
pubmed: 31337298
Stroke. 2019 Dec;50(12):e344-e418
pubmed: 31662037
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2019 Mar;62(2):193-200
pubmed: 30840974
Stroke. 2013 Jan;44(1):240-2
pubmed: 23223507

Auteurs

Moriz Herzberg (M)

Institute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.
Department of Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.

Franziska Dorn (F)

Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany.

Christoph Trumm (C)

Institute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.

Lars Kellert (L)

Department of Neurology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.

Steffen Tiedt (S)

Department of Neurology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.
Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research (ISD), University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.

Katharina Feil (K)

Department of Neurology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.

Clemens Küpper (C)

Department of Neurology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.

Frank Wollenweber (F)

Department of Neurology, Hospital Wiesbaden, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany.

Thomas Liebig (T)

Institute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.

Hanna Zimmermann (H)

Institute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), 80539 Munich, Germany.

Classifications MeSH