Association of first-line thrombectomy technique and outcome in late-window large vessel occlusion strokes: A post hoc analysis of the MR CLEAN-LATE trial.

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY International Journal of Stroke Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1177/17474930241268303
Robrecht Rmm Knapen, Susanne Gh Olthuis, Adriaan Cgm van Es, Bart J Emmer, Wouter J Schonewille, Christiaan van der Leij, Wim H van Zwam, Robert J van Oostenbrugge
{"title":"Association of first-line thrombectomy technique and outcome in late-window large vessel occlusion strokes: A post hoc analysis of the MR CLEAN-LATE trial.","authors":"Robrecht Rmm Knapen, Susanne Gh Olthuis, Adriaan Cgm van Es, Bart J Emmer, Wouter J Schonewille, Christiaan van der Leij, Wim H van Zwam, Robert J van Oostenbrugge","doi":"10.1177/17474930241268303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare direct aspiration, stent retriever, and the combined thrombectomy technique on clinical, safety, and technical outcomes in late-window stroke patients included in the MR CLEAN-LATE trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This post hoc analysis of the MR CLEAN-LATE trial included patients treated with direct aspiration, stent retriever, or combined thrombectomy technique as first-line approach. Primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days follow-up, and compared between the three groups with ordinal logistic regression analysis. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, total technique switches, procedure time, recanalization rate measured with the expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (eTICI) score, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Predefined variables were used for adjustments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the MR CLEAN-LATE trial, 258 patients underwent endovascular treatment and 232 were included in our analyses. The mRS at 90 days did not differ (stent retriever vs. direct aspiration: adjusted common odds ratio (acOR) = 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73 to 2.50; stent retriever vs. combined: acOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.64 to 2.00; direct aspiration vs. combined: acOR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.64 to 2.21). Direct aspiration thrombectomy was accompanied with more switches to another technique compared to the stent retriever (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 6.50, 95% CI = 2.52 to 16.8) or combined group (aOR = 4.67, 95% CI = 1.80 to 12.1) and with higher sICH rates compared to the combined technique (13% vs. 2.5%; aOR = 8.19, 95% CI = 1.49 to 45.1). Mortality, procedure time, and eTICI did not differ.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Stent retriever, direct aspiration, or the combined thrombectomy technique as first-line approach showed no differences in clinical outcome in late-window stroke patients. Direct aspiration was accompanied with higher sICH rates and more switcher to another technique compared to the combined group.</p>","PeriodicalId":14442,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stroke","volume":" ","pages":"1113-1122"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11590395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Stroke","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241268303","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare direct aspiration, stent retriever, and the combined thrombectomy technique on clinical, safety, and technical outcomes in late-window stroke patients included in the MR CLEAN-LATE trial.

Methods: This post hoc analysis of the MR CLEAN-LATE trial included patients treated with direct aspiration, stent retriever, or combined thrombectomy technique as first-line approach. Primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days follow-up, and compared between the three groups with ordinal logistic regression analysis. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, total technique switches, procedure time, recanalization rate measured with the expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (eTICI) score, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Predefined variables were used for adjustments.

Results: In the MR CLEAN-LATE trial, 258 patients underwent endovascular treatment and 232 were included in our analyses. The mRS at 90 days did not differ (stent retriever vs. direct aspiration: adjusted common odds ratio (acOR) = 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73 to 2.50; stent retriever vs. combined: acOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.64 to 2.00; direct aspiration vs. combined: acOR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.64 to 2.21). Direct aspiration thrombectomy was accompanied with more switches to another technique compared to the stent retriever (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 6.50, 95% CI = 2.52 to 16.8) or combined group (aOR = 4.67, 95% CI = 1.80 to 12.1) and with higher sICH rates compared to the combined technique (13% vs. 2.5%; aOR = 8.19, 95% CI = 1.49 to 45.1). Mortality, procedure time, and eTICI did not differ.

Conclusion: Stent retriever, direct aspiration, or the combined thrombectomy technique as first-line approach showed no differences in clinical outcome in late-window stroke patients. Direct aspiration was accompanied with higher sICH rates and more switcher to another technique compared to the combined group.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
晚窗大血管闭塞性脑卒中一线血栓切除技术与预后的关系;MR CLEAN-LATE 试验的事后分析。
背景:本研究旨在比较直接抽吸术、支架回取术和联合血栓切除术对 MR CLEAN-LATE 试验中的晚窗口期卒中患者的临床、安全性和技术结果:本研究旨在比较 MR CLEAN-LATE 试验中晚期脑卒中患者的直接抽吸、支架回取和联合血栓切除技术的临床、安全性和技术结果:这项 MR CLEAN-LATE 试验的事后分析包括采用直接抽吸、支架回取或联合血栓切除技术作为一线治疗方法的患者。主要结果是随访90天时的改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分,并通过序数逻辑回归分析对三组进行比较。次要结果包括90天时的死亡率、技术总转换次数、手术时间、用扩大脑梗塞溶栓(eTICI)评分测量的再通率以及症状性颅内出血(sICH)。结果:在MR CLEAN-LATE试验中,258名患者接受了血管内治疗,其中232人纳入了我们的分析。90天时的mRS没有差异(支架再障与直接抽吸:调整后的普通[ac] OR1.35,95%CI:0.73-2.50;支架再障与联合:acOR1.13,95%CI:0.64-2.00;直接抽吸与联合:acOR1.19,95%CI:0.64-2.21)。与支架回收器组(aOR:6.50,95%CI:2.52-16.8)或联合组(aOR:4.67,95%CI:1.80-12.1)相比,直接抽吸血栓切除术伴随着更多转用其他技术的情况,与联合技术相比,sICH 发生率更高(13% 对 2.5%;aOR: 8.19,95%CI:1.49-45.1)。死亡率、手术时间和eTICI没有差异:结论:支架回取术、直接抽吸术或联合血栓切除术作为一线治疗方法,在晚窗口期卒中患者的临床预后方面没有差异。与联合组相比,直接抽吸法的 sICH 发生率更高,且更多患者转用其他技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Stroke
International Journal of Stroke 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
13.90
自引率
6.00%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Stroke is a welcome addition to the international stroke journal landscape in that it concentrates on the clinical aspects of stroke with basic science contributions in areas of clinical interest. Reviews of current topics are broadly based to encompass not only recent advances of global interest but also those which may be more important in certain regions and the journal regularly features items of news interest from all parts of the world. To facilitate the international nature of the journal, our Associate Editors from Europe, Asia, North America and South America coordinate segments of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Collaterals and outcomes after endovascular treatment in acute large vessel occlusion: Disparity by stroke etiologies. Prevalence of carotid plaques with high-risk features in embolic stroke of undetermined source: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Comparative Outcomes of Arteriovenous Malformations treatment in Eloquent versus Non-Eloquent Brain: A Multicenter Study with Propensity-Score Weighting. Andexanet alfa in patients with factor Xa inhibitor-associated intracranial hemorrhage: The prospective observational multicenter ASTRO-DE study. Predicting Stroke in Patients with Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1