Direct dotterising or angioplasty of acute stroke due to tandem atherosclerotic occlusions

L. Yeo, D. Simonato, P. Bhogal, A. Gopinathan, Y. Cunli, Samuel W. Q. Ong, M. Jing, B. Tan, C. Sia, Tom Jia, G. Cester, J. Gabrieli, T. Andersson
{"title":"Direct dotterising or angioplasty of acute stroke due to tandem atherosclerotic occlusions","authors":"L. Yeo, D. Simonato, P. Bhogal, A. Gopinathan, Y. Cunli, Samuel W. Q. Ong, M. Jing, B. Tan, C. Sia, Tom Jia, G. Cester, J. Gabrieli, T. Andersson","doi":"10.3389/fstro.2023.1163106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Tandem occlusions cause 10–15% of LVO acute ischemic strokes but are difficult to treat endovascularly and frequently excluded from clinical trials. The optimum endovascular method is still debated, however going directly through the carotid occlusion can speed up the procedure and reduce procedural risk by eliminating an exchange maneuver. Method Using retrospective data from three centers, we compared treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions using a 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon suitable for the wire, vs. the usual technique of an 0.014'wire. We compared the successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3) rates, 90 days' functional outcomes (mRS 0–2), and puncture-to-recanalization times between both procedures. Results Forty-two consecutive patients with atherosclerotic tandem occlusions were included; 25 were treated with the 0.014'wire technique and 17 with the 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon technique. The direct technique achieved a higher rate of successful recanalization (100 vs. 72%, P = 0.018), better functional outcome (88.4 vs. 48.0%, P = 0.044), and faster procedure times (mean 65.1 mins vs. 114.8 mins, P < 0.001). The number of attempts was similar between both groups (median 2 vs 3 attempts, P = 0.101). There was no significant difference in the complication rate between both groups (5.9 vs. 12.0%, P = 0.462). Conclusion Compared to previous endovascular techniques for treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions, the direct technique using standard 0.035' guidewires and dotterisation or a peripheral vascular balloon is significantly faster with better outcomes. However, this will require further external validation in larger cohorts.","PeriodicalId":73108,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in stroke","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in stroke","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fstro.2023.1163106","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

Background Tandem occlusions cause 10–15% of LVO acute ischemic strokes but are difficult to treat endovascularly and frequently excluded from clinical trials. The optimum endovascular method is still debated, however going directly through the carotid occlusion can speed up the procedure and reduce procedural risk by eliminating an exchange maneuver. Method Using retrospective data from three centers, we compared treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions using a 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon suitable for the wire, vs. the usual technique of an 0.014'wire. We compared the successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3) rates, 90 days' functional outcomes (mRS 0–2), and puncture-to-recanalization times between both procedures. Results Forty-two consecutive patients with atherosclerotic tandem occlusions were included; 25 were treated with the 0.014'wire technique and 17 with the 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon technique. The direct technique achieved a higher rate of successful recanalization (100 vs. 72%, P = 0.018), better functional outcome (88.4 vs. 48.0%, P = 0.044), and faster procedure times (mean 65.1 mins vs. 114.8 mins, P < 0.001). The number of attempts was similar between both groups (median 2 vs 3 attempts, P = 0.101). There was no significant difference in the complication rate between both groups (5.9 vs. 12.0%, P = 0.462). Conclusion Compared to previous endovascular techniques for treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions, the direct technique using standard 0.035' guidewires and dotterisation or a peripheral vascular balloon is significantly faster with better outcomes. However, this will require further external validation in larger cohorts.
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
急性脑卒中并发动脉粥样硬化闭塞的直接dotterising或angioplasty
串联闭塞导致10-15%的左心室急性缺血性中风,但难以治疗血管内栓塞,经常被排除在临床试验之外。最佳的血管内方法仍有争议,但直接通过颈动脉闭塞可以加快手术速度,并通过消除交换操作降低手术风险。方法利用三个中心的回顾性数据,我们比较了使用0.035'导丝和直接dotdotisation或适合导丝的周围血管球囊血管成形术治疗动脉粥样硬化性串联闭塞与通常使用0.014'导丝的技术。我们比较了两种手术的再通成功率(mTICI 2b-3)、90天功能结果(mRS 0-2)和穿刺至再通时间。结果连续纳入42例动脉粥样硬化串联闭塞患者;25例采用0.014'导丝技术,17例采用0.035'导丝和直接dotterisation或外周血管球囊技术血管成形术。直接技术的再通成功率更高(100比72%,P = 0.018),功能预后更好(88.4比48.0%,P = 0.044),手术时间更短(平均65.1分钟比114.8分钟,P < 0.001)。两组之间的尝试次数相似(中位数2 vs 3次,P = 0.101)。两组并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(5.9% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.462)。结论与以往治疗动脉粥样硬化串联性闭塞的血管内技术相比,使用标准0.035'导丝和周围血管球囊dotdotdot直接技术治疗动脉粥样硬化串联性闭塞明显更快,效果更好。然而,这需要在更大的队列中进行进一步的外部验证。
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
The important role of community organizations in stroke recovery and reintegration The coproduction of a multilevel personal narrative intervention for people with aphasia in a community communication support group—A pilot study Is thrombolysis beneficial in elderly patients with minor ischemic stroke? Outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion and initial mild deficits The NLRP3 inflammasome in ischemic stroke
×
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