Matched-pair analysis of patients with ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy using next-generation balloon guide catheters.
Balloon
Catheter
Stent
Stroke
Thrombectomy
Journal
Journal of neurointerventional surgery
ISSN: 1759-8486
Titre abrégé: J Neurointerv Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101517079
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Oct 2023
04 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
12
07
2023
accepted:
08
09
2023
medline:
5
10
2023
pubmed:
5
10
2023
entrez:
4
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Balloon guide catheters (BGCs) have not been widely adopted, possibly due to the incompatibility of past-generation BGCs with large-bore intermediate catheters. The next-generation BGC is compatible with large-bore catheters. We compared outcomes of thrombectomy cases using BGCs versus conventional guide catheters. We conducted a retrospective study of 110 thrombectomy cases using BGCs (n=55) and non-BGCs (n=55). Sixty consecutive thrombectomy cases in whom the BOBBY BGC was used at a single institution between February 2021 and March 2022 were identified. Of these, 55 BGC cases were 1:1 matched with non-BGC cases by proceduralists, age, gender, stent retriever + aspiration device versus aspiration-only, and site of occlusion. First-pass effect was defined as Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction 2b or higher with a single pass. The BGC and non-BGC cohorts had similar mean age (67.2 vs 68.9 years), gender distribution (43.6% vs 47.3% women), median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (14 vs 15), and median pretreatment ischemic core volumes (12 mL vs 11.5 mL). BGC and non-BGC cases had similar rates of single pass (60.0% vs 54.6%), first-pass effect (58.2% vs 49.1%), and complications (1.8% vs 9.1%). In aspiration-only cases, the BGC cohort had a significantly higher rate of first-pass effect (100% vs 50.0%, p=0.01). BGC was associated with a higher likelihood of achieving a modified Rankin Scale score of 2 at discharge (OR 7.76, p=0.02). No additional procedural time was required for BGC cases (46.7 vs 48.2 min). BGCs may be safely adopted with comparable procedural efficacy, benefits to aspiration-only techniques, and earlier functional improvement compared with conventional guide catheters.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Balloon guide catheters (BGCs) have not been widely adopted, possibly due to the incompatibility of past-generation BGCs with large-bore intermediate catheters. The next-generation BGC is compatible with large-bore catheters. We compared outcomes of thrombectomy cases using BGCs versus conventional guide catheters.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective study of 110 thrombectomy cases using BGCs (n=55) and non-BGCs (n=55). Sixty consecutive thrombectomy cases in whom the BOBBY BGC was used at a single institution between February 2021 and March 2022 were identified. Of these, 55 BGC cases were 1:1 matched with non-BGC cases by proceduralists, age, gender, stent retriever + aspiration device versus aspiration-only, and site of occlusion. First-pass effect was defined as Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction 2b or higher with a single pass.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The BGC and non-BGC cohorts had similar mean age (67.2 vs 68.9 years), gender distribution (43.6% vs 47.3% women), median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (14 vs 15), and median pretreatment ischemic core volumes (12 mL vs 11.5 mL). BGC and non-BGC cases had similar rates of single pass (60.0% vs 54.6%), first-pass effect (58.2% vs 49.1%), and complications (1.8% vs 9.1%). In aspiration-only cases, the BGC cohort had a significantly higher rate of first-pass effect (100% vs 50.0%, p=0.01). BGC was associated with a higher likelihood of achieving a modified Rankin Scale score of 2 at discharge (OR 7.76, p=0.02). No additional procedural time was required for BGC cases (46.7 vs 48.2 min).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
BGCs may be safely adopted with comparable procedural efficacy, benefits to aspiration-only techniques, and earlier functional improvement compared with conventional guide catheters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37793796
pii: jnis-2023-020635
doi: 10.1136/jnis-2023-020635
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.