Aspiration Versus Stent Retriever Thrombectomy in Basilar‐Artery Occlusion; Results From the BASICS Trial

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1161/svin.122.000768
R. R. Knapen, M. L. Bernsen, L. Langezaal, Susanne G H Olthuis, P. Michel, J. Hofmeijer, J. Vos, S. V. van Kuijk, C. Majoie, B. Emmer, G. Lycklama à Nijeholt, J. Boiten, V. Puetz, J. Gerber, M. Mazighi, O. Pontes-Neto, F. MONT’ALVERNE, A. Yoo, P. V. van Doormaal, Diederik W.J. Van Dippel, C. van der Leij, R. V. van Oostenbrugge, W. V. van Zwam, W. Schonewille
{"title":"Aspiration Versus Stent Retriever Thrombectomy in Basilar‐Artery Occlusion; Results From the BASICS Trial","authors":"R. R. Knapen, M. L. Bernsen, L. Langezaal, Susanne G H Olthuis, P. Michel, J. Hofmeijer, J. Vos, S. V. van Kuijk, C. Majoie, B. Emmer, G. Lycklama à Nijeholt, J. Boiten, V. Puetz, J. Gerber, M. Mazighi, O. Pontes-Neto, F. MONT’ALVERNE, A. Yoo, P. V. van Doormaal, Diederik W.J. Van Dippel, C. van der Leij, R. V. van Oostenbrugge, W. V. van Zwam, W. Schonewille","doi":"10.1161/svin.122.000768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Both aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy are safe and effective in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. Little is known on the outcomes of these techniques in patients with basilar artery occlusion. This study aimed to compare clinical, technical, and safety outcomes of aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy as first‐line treatment for basilar artery occlusion in the BASICS (Basilar artery International Cooperation Study) trial.\n \n \n \n For this post hoc analysis of the BASICS trial, all patients with a basilar artery occlusion who received endovascular treatment with either direct aspiration or stent retriever thrombectomy as first‐line approach were included. When both techniques were registered as first choice, patients were considered to have been treated with stent retriever. The primary outcome was favorable functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 0–3 at 90 days follow‐up, and analyzed using binary logistic regression analysis. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin scale score at 90 days (ranging from 0 to 6), procedure duration, mortality at 90 days, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Secondary outcomes were analyzed using binary, linear, or ordinal regression analyses. All analyses were adjusted for predefined variables.\n \n \n \n Among 158 BASICS patients treated with endovascular treatment,127 were treated with either stent retriever (N=67, 53%), or aspiration (N=60, 47%) as the first‐line treatment modality. We observed no significant difference in favorable functional outcome between patients treated with aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy as first modality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.80; [95% CI, 0.68–4.76]). Also modified Rankin scale score at 90 days (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.62; [95% CI, 0.30–1.27]) and incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61; [95% CI, 0.08–4.76]) showed no significant differences between both techniques. Procedure time was shorter with a median of 32 versus 47 minutes (26%; 95% CI, −42 to −6) and mortality rates at 90 days were lower (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; [95% CI: 0.13–1.00]) in the direct aspiration group.\n \n \n \n This study shows no difference in favorable functional outcome in patients with a basilar artery occlusion treated with direct aspiration compared with patients treated with stent retriever thrombectomy within the BASICS trial, despite a shorter procedure time and lower mortality rate at 90 days.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.122.000768","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Both aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy are safe and effective in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. Little is known on the outcomes of these techniques in patients with basilar artery occlusion. This study aimed to compare clinical, technical, and safety outcomes of aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy as first‐line treatment for basilar artery occlusion in the BASICS (Basilar artery International Cooperation Study) trial. For this post hoc analysis of the BASICS trial, all patients with a basilar artery occlusion who received endovascular treatment with either direct aspiration or stent retriever thrombectomy as first‐line approach were included. When both techniques were registered as first choice, patients were considered to have been treated with stent retriever. The primary outcome was favorable functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 0–3 at 90 days follow‐up, and analyzed using binary logistic regression analysis. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin scale score at 90 days (ranging from 0 to 6), procedure duration, mortality at 90 days, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Secondary outcomes were analyzed using binary, linear, or ordinal regression analyses. All analyses were adjusted for predefined variables. Among 158 BASICS patients treated with endovascular treatment,127 were treated with either stent retriever (N=67, 53%), or aspiration (N=60, 47%) as the first‐line treatment modality. We observed no significant difference in favorable functional outcome between patients treated with aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy as first modality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.80; [95% CI, 0.68–4.76]). Also modified Rankin scale score at 90 days (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.62; [95% CI, 0.30–1.27]) and incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61; [95% CI, 0.08–4.76]) showed no significant differences between both techniques. Procedure time was shorter with a median of 32 versus 47 minutes (26%; 95% CI, −42 to −6) and mortality rates at 90 days were lower (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; [95% CI: 0.13–1.00]) in the direct aspiration group. This study shows no difference in favorable functional outcome in patients with a basilar artery occlusion treated with direct aspiration compared with patients treated with stent retriever thrombectomy within the BASICS trial, despite a shorter procedure time and lower mortality rate at 90 days.
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
基底动脉闭塞患者抽吸与支架取栓的比较BASICS试验的结果
对于前循环大血管闭塞的急性缺血性脑卒中患者,抽吸和支架取栓均安全有效。这些技术在基底动脉闭塞患者中的效果尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较BASICS(基底动脉国际合作研究)试验中抽吸和支架取栓作为基底动脉闭塞一线治疗的临床、技术和安全性结果。在这项BASICS试验的事后分析中,所有接受血管内治疗的基底动脉闭塞患者均被纳入,无论是直接抽吸还是支架取栓作为一线方法。当这两种技术被登记为首选时,患者被认为已经使用支架回收器治疗。主要结局是良好的功能结局,定义为随访90天的修正Rankin量表评分0-3,并使用二元逻辑回归分析。次要结局包括90天改良Rankin评分(范围从0到6)、手术持续时间、90天死亡率和症状性颅内出血。次要结果分析采用二元、线性或有序回归分析。所有的分析都根据预定义的变量进行了调整。在158例接受血管内治疗的BASICS患者中,127例接受支架回收器(N=67, 53%)或抽吸(N=60, 47%)作为一线治疗方式。我们观察到,以抽吸和支架取栓作为第一种方式治疗的患者在良好的功能结局方面没有显著差异(校正优势比为1.80;[95% ci, 0.68-4.76])。同时修改Rankin量表评分在90天(调整共同优势比,0.62;[95% CI, 0.30-1.27])和症状性颅内出血的发生率(校正优势比,0.61;[95% CI, 0.08-4.76])显示两种技术之间无显著差异。手术时间较短,中位数为32分钟,而不是47分钟(26%;95% CI, - 42至- 6),90天死亡率较低(校正优势比,0.36;[95% CI: 0.13-1.00])。这项研究显示,在BASICS试验中,直接抽吸治疗基底动脉闭塞的患者与支架取栓治疗的患者相比,良好的功能结局没有差异,尽管手术时间更短,90天死亡率更低。
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
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Therapy Effectiveness for Unruptured Saccular Intracranial Aneurysms. Large, Wide-Neck, Side-Wall Aneurysm Treatment in Canines Using NeuroCURE: A Novel Liquid Embolic. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual CLOTS Meeting: CLOTS 7.0, Madrid, Spain Catching Up With Time: Endovascular Treatment Beyond 24 Hours Can Aneurysm Wall Radiomics Help Predict Rupture Risk?
×
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