Backgroud The need for rescue treatment (RT) may differ depending on first-line modality (stent retriever (SR) or contact aspiration (CA)) in endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). We aimed to investigate whether the type of first-line modality in EVT was associated with the need for RT. Methods We identified all patients who underwent EVT for anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion from prospectively maintained registries of 17 stroke centers. Patients were dichotomized into SR-first and CA-first. RT involved switching to the other device, balloon angioplasty, permanent stenting, thrombolytics, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist, or any combination of these. We compared clinical characteristics, procedural details, and final recanalization rate between the two groups and assessed whether first-line modality type was associated with RT requirement and if this affected clinical outcome. Results A total of 955 patients underwent EVT using either SR-first (n=526) or CA-first (n=429). No difference occurred in the final recanalization rate between SR-first (82.1%) and CA-first (80.2%). However, recanalization with the first-line modality alone and first-pass recanalization rates were significantly higher in SR-first than in CA-first. CA-first had more device passes and higher RT rate. The RT group had significantly longer puncture-to-recanalization time (93±48 min versus 53±28 min). After adjustment, CA-first remained associated with RT (OR, 1.367; 95% CI, 1.019 to 1.834). RT was negatively associated with good outcome (OR, 0.597; 95% CI, 0.410 to 0.870). Conclusion CA was associated with requiring RT, while recanalization with first-line modality alone and first-pass recanalization rates were higher with SR. RT was negatively associated with good outcome.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HC15C1056)
This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HC15C1056).
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Clinical Neurology