Predicting Recanalization Failure With Conventional Devices During Endovascular Treatment Related to Vessel Occlusion

A. Flores, Marcos Elizalde, L. Seró, X. Ustrell, Ylenia Avivar, A. Pellisé, P. Rodriguez, Angela Monterde, Lidia Lara, Jose Maria Gonzalez‐de‐Echavarri, Victor Cuba, Marc Rodrigo Gisbert, M. Requena, Carlos A. Molina, Angel Chamorro, N. Pérez de la Ossa, P. Cardona, D. Cánovas, F. Purroy, Yolanda Silva, Ana Camzpello, J. Martí-Fábregas, S. Abilleira, Marc Ribó
{"title":"Predicting Recanalization Failure With Conventional Devices During Endovascular Treatment Related to Vessel Occlusion","authors":"A. Flores, Marcos Elizalde, L. Seró, X. Ustrell, Ylenia Avivar, A. Pellisé, P. Rodriguez, Angela Monterde, Lidia Lara, Jose Maria Gonzalez‐de‐Echavarri, Victor Cuba, Marc Rodrigo Gisbert, M. Requena, Carlos A. Molina, Angel Chamorro, N. Pérez de la Ossa, P. Cardona, D. Cánovas, F. Purroy, Yolanda Silva, Ana Camzpello, J. Martí-Fábregas, S. Abilleira, Marc Ribó","doi":"10.1161/svin.124.001371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Among patients with stroke eligible for endovascular treatment, preprocedure identification of those with low chances of successful recanalization with conventional devices (stent‐retrievers and/or direct aspiration) may allow anticipating procedural rescue strategies. We aimed to develop a preprocedural algorithm able to predict recanalization failure with conventional devices (RFCD).\n \n \n \n Observational study. Data from consecutive patients with stroke who received endovascular treatment between 2019 and 2022 in 10 centers were collected from the Catalan Stroke Registry (Codi Ictus Catalunya Registry, CICAT). RFCD was defined as final thrombolysis in cerebral infarction ≤2a or the use of rescue therapy defined as balloon angioplasty±stent deployment. Univariate and multivariate analysis to identify variables associated with RFCD were performed. A gradient boosted decision tree machine learning model to predict RFCD was developed utilizing preprocedure variables previously selected. Clinical improvement at 24 hours was defined as a drop of ≥4 points from baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score or 0–1 at 24 hours.\n \n \n \n \n In total, 984 patients were included; RFCD was observed in 14.3% (n:141) of the cases. Of these, 47.5% (n = 67) received balloon angioplasty±stent deployment as rescue therapy. Among patients receiving balloon angioplasty±stent deployment, clinical improvement was associated with lower number of attempts with conventional devices (median number of passes 2 versus 3;\n P\n = 0.045). In logistic regression, the absence of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR]: 2.730, 95%CI: 1.541–4.836;\n P\n = 0.007) and no‐thrombolytic treatment (OR: 1.826, 95%CI: 1.230–2.711;\n P\n = 0.003) emerged as independent predictors of RFCD. A predictive model for RFCD, based on age, sex, hypertension, wake‐up stroke, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT [Computed Tomography] Score, occlusion site, thrombolysis, and atrial fibrillation showed an acceptable discrimination (area under the curve: 0.72±0.024 SD) and accuracy (0.75±0.015 SD). Overall performance was moderate (weighted F1‐score: 0.77±0.041 SD).\n \n \n \n \n In RFCD patients, early balloon angioplasty±stent deployment rescue was associated with improved outcomes. A predictive model using affordable preprocedure clinical variables could be useful to identify these patients before intervention.\n","PeriodicalId":21977,"journal":{"name":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","volume":" 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.124.001371","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among patients with stroke eligible for endovascular treatment, preprocedure identification of those with low chances of successful recanalization with conventional devices (stent‐retrievers and/or direct aspiration) may allow anticipating procedural rescue strategies. We aimed to develop a preprocedural algorithm able to predict recanalization failure with conventional devices (RFCD). Observational study. Data from consecutive patients with stroke who received endovascular treatment between 2019 and 2022 in 10 centers were collected from the Catalan Stroke Registry (Codi Ictus Catalunya Registry, CICAT). RFCD was defined as final thrombolysis in cerebral infarction ≤2a or the use of rescue therapy defined as balloon angioplasty±stent deployment. Univariate and multivariate analysis to identify variables associated with RFCD were performed. A gradient boosted decision tree machine learning model to predict RFCD was developed utilizing preprocedure variables previously selected. Clinical improvement at 24 hours was defined as a drop of ≥4 points from baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score or 0–1 at 24 hours. In total, 984 patients were included; RFCD was observed in 14.3% (n:141) of the cases. Of these, 47.5% (n = 67) received balloon angioplasty±stent deployment as rescue therapy. Among patients receiving balloon angioplasty±stent deployment, clinical improvement was associated with lower number of attempts with conventional devices (median number of passes 2 versus 3; P = 0.045). In logistic regression, the absence of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR]: 2.730, 95%CI: 1.541–4.836; P = 0.007) and no‐thrombolytic treatment (OR: 1.826, 95%CI: 1.230–2.711; P = 0.003) emerged as independent predictors of RFCD. A predictive model for RFCD, based on age, sex, hypertension, wake‐up stroke, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT [Computed Tomography] Score, occlusion site, thrombolysis, and atrial fibrillation showed an acceptable discrimination (area under the curve: 0.72±0.024 SD) and accuracy (0.75±0.015 SD). Overall performance was moderate (weighted F1‐score: 0.77±0.041 SD). In RFCD patients, early balloon angioplasty±stent deployment rescue was associated with improved outcomes. A predictive model using affordable preprocedure clinical variables could be useful to identify these patients before intervention.
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
预测血管闭塞相关的血管内治疗过程中传统设备的再通畅失败率
在符合血管内治疗条件的脑卒中患者中,术前识别出使用传统设备(支架取出器和/或直接抽吸器)成功再通畅几率较低的患者,可以预测手术抢救策略。我们的目标是开发一种术前算法,能够预测使用传统设备(RFCD)再通失败的情况。 观察性研究。我们从加泰罗尼亚卒中登记处(Codi Ictus Catalunya Registry, CICAT)收集了2019年至2022年间在10个中心接受血管内治疗的连续中风患者的数据。RFCD的定义是最终脑梗塞溶栓≤2a或使用抢救疗法(定义为球囊血管成形术±支架植入术)。为确定与RFCD相关的变量,进行了单变量和多变量分析。利用之前选定的术前变量,开发了梯度提升决策树机器学习模型来预测 RFCD。24 小时临床改善的定义是,24 小时内与基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分相比下降≥4 分或 0-1 分。 总共纳入了 984 名患者,其中 14.3%(n:141)的病例观察到了 RFCD。其中,47.5%(n = 67)的患者接受了球囊血管成形术和支架植入术作为抢救疗法。在接受球囊血管成形术±支架置入术的患者中,临床改善与使用传统设备的尝试次数较少有关(中位通过次数为 2 对 3;P = 0.045)。在逻辑回归中,无心房颤动(几率比 [OR]:2.730,95%CI:1.541-4.836;P = 0.007)和无溶栓治疗(OR:1.826,95%CI:1.230-2.711;P = 0.003)成为 RFCD 的独立预测因素。基于年龄、性别、高血压、唤醒卒中、美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表基线评分、阿尔伯塔省卒中项目早期 CT[计算机断层扫描]评分、闭塞部位、溶栓和心房颤动的 RFCD 预测模型显示了可接受的辨别率(曲线下面积:0.72±0.024 SD)和准确率(0.75±0.015 SD)。总体性能适中(加权 F1 分数:0.77±0.041 SD)。 在 RFCD 患者中,早期球囊血管成形术±支架部署抢救与预后改善相关。利用可负担的术前临床变量建立的预测模型有助于在干预前识别这些患者。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prognostication Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Modified Hunt and Hess Grading Scale Intra‐arterial Selective Bevacizumab Administration in the Middle Meningeal Artery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: An Early Experience in 12 Hemispheres Sex Disparities in Mortality After Endovascular Therapy in Large Core Infarcts Predicting Recanalization Failure With Conventional Devices During Endovascular Treatment Related to Vessel Occlusion Antiplatelet Therapy and Platelet Activity Testing for Neurointerventional Procedures
×
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