Functional outcome in low-ASPECTS (0-5) acute ischemic stroke treated with mechanical thrombectomy: impact of laterality explored in a single-center study.
AIS-LVO
laterality
low-ASPECT
mechanical thrombectomy
stroke
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
13
04
2023
accepted:
12
06
2023
medline:
20
7
2023
pubmed:
20
7
2023
entrez:
20
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is no consensus regarding the influence of infarct laterality in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to anterior large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT), particularly in low-ASPECT (0-5) patients who were excluded from the initial MT studies and that participated in dedicated randomized-controlled trials that do not consider the side of the occlusion. We aimed to evaluate the role of infarct laterality on the clinical outcome in low-ASPECT AIS patients treated with MT. We retrospectively analyzed our institutional stroke database in our Thrombectomy-Capable Stroke Center (TCSC), including patient characteristics, procedural variables, and outcomes, between January 2015 and January 2022. Patients with acute intracranial ICA and/or proximal MCA occlusions with ASPECT ≤ 5 either on CT or MRI were included and divided into 2 groups according to the location of ischemia. The primary endpoint was a good clinical outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3). Between January 2015 and November 2021, 817 MT were performed, of which 82 were low-ASPECT (10.0%): 41 left-sided and 41 right-sided strokes. The rates of good clinical outcome were 30.8% (12/41) for the left-sided group and 43.6% (17/41) for the right-sided group, with a The clinical outcome was not significantly influenced by stroke laterality. The results of this single-center retrospective study indicate either a lack of strength or equal value in performing mechanical thrombectomy regardless of stroke laterality.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
There is no consensus regarding the influence of infarct laterality in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to anterior large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT), particularly in low-ASPECT (0-5) patients who were excluded from the initial MT studies and that participated in dedicated randomized-controlled trials that do not consider the side of the occlusion. We aimed to evaluate the role of infarct laterality on the clinical outcome in low-ASPECT AIS patients treated with MT.
Material and methods
UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively analyzed our institutional stroke database in our Thrombectomy-Capable Stroke Center (TCSC), including patient characteristics, procedural variables, and outcomes, between January 2015 and January 2022. Patients with acute intracranial ICA and/or proximal MCA occlusions with ASPECT ≤ 5 either on CT or MRI were included and divided into 2 groups according to the location of ischemia. The primary endpoint was a good clinical outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3).
Results
UNASSIGNED
Between January 2015 and November 2021, 817 MT were performed, of which 82 were low-ASPECT (10.0%): 41 left-sided and 41 right-sided strokes. The rates of good clinical outcome were 30.8% (12/41) for the left-sided group and 43.6% (17/41) for the right-sided group, with a
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The clinical outcome was not significantly influenced by stroke laterality. The results of this single-center retrospective study indicate either a lack of strength or equal value in performing mechanical thrombectomy regardless of stroke laterality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37470004
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1205256
pmc: PMC10353876
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1205256Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Dumas, Martin, Giraud, Prigent, Bloch, Soualmi, Herpe, Boucebci, Neau, Guillevin and Velasco.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Arch Neurol. 2004 Nov;61(11):1677-80
pubmed: 15534178
Science. 1968 Jul 12;161(3837):186-7
pubmed: 5657070
N Engl J Med. 2022 Apr 7;386(14):1303-1313
pubmed: 35138767
Lancet. 2000 May 13;355(9216):1670-4
pubmed: 10905241
Cereb Cortex. 1994 Jul-Aug;4(4):331-43
pubmed: 7950307
Lancet Neurol. 2006 Jul;5(7):603-12
pubmed: 16781990
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Oct;17(10):895-904
pubmed: 30264728
N Engl J Med. 2023 Apr 6;388(14):1272-1283
pubmed: 36762852
N Engl J Med. 2023 Apr 6;388(14):1259-1271
pubmed: 36762865
Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):1992-8
pubmed: 24923724
Neurology. 2005 Jul 12;65(1):81-6
pubmed: 16009890
Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):1091-6
pubmed: 17272767
Eur J Neurol. 2020 Oct;27(10):2031-2035
pubmed: 32449311
Lancet. 2005 Jul 30-Aug 5;366(9483):392-3
pubmed: 16054939
Neurology. 1996 Aug;47(2):388-92
pubmed: 8757009
Neurol Res Pract. 2022 Nov 21;4(1):58
pubmed: 36411484
Stroke. 2006 Aug;37(8):2066-9
pubmed: 16794212
Neurology. 2023 Jun 5;:
pubmed: 37277200
Neuroradiology. 2013 Aug;55(8):977-987
pubmed: 23644538
Stroke. 2002 Apr;33(4):954-8
pubmed: 11935043
Br Med J. 1885 Jun 20;1(1277):1242-4
pubmed: 20751302
Eur Neurol. 2002;48(3):141-5
pubmed: 12373030
Lancet. 2006 May 27;367(9524):1747-57
pubmed: 16731270
Lancet. 2017 Feb 11;389(10069):641-654
pubmed: 27637676
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1977 Sep 30;299:355-69
pubmed: 101116
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 01;76(10):1147-1156
pubmed: 31355873
Stroke. 2019 May;50(5):1164-1171
pubmed: 31009354
J Rehabil Med. 2020 Jun 12;52(6):jrm00071
pubmed: 32488283
Stroke. 2019 Aug;50(8):2118-2124
pubmed: 31272328
Stroke. 1999 Nov;30(11):2355-9
pubmed: 10548670