栓塞相关急性基底动脉闭塞性中风的血管内治疗:ADAPT与支架取栓术的比较。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Interventional Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2024-05-15 DOI:10.1177/15910199241254137
Xinghang Lan, Zi Liang, Chunyun Shen, Weiwen Yi, Fuwen Ni, Zhenyu Zhang, Zhantao Li, Anhua Li, Geng Liao
{"title":"栓塞相关急性基底动脉闭塞性中风的血管内治疗:ADAPT与支架取栓术的比较。","authors":"Xinghang Lan, Zi Liang, Chunyun Shen, Weiwen Yi, Fuwen Ni, Zhenyu Zhang, Zhantao Li, Anhua Li, Geng Liao","doi":"10.1177/15910199241254137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a direct aspiration first-pass technique (ADAPT) and stent retriever thrombectomy (SRT) technique in embolism-related acute basilar artery occlusion (EMB-ABAO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected data from patients with EMB-ABAO in multiple stroke centers from January 2017 to February 2024. We defined two groups of enrolled patients, the ADAPT group and the SRT group. The primary outcome was the first attempt recanalization (FAR) rate. Secondary outcomes were the puncture to recanalization (PTR) time and the 90-day favorable functional outcome. The safety outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 406 patients were screened for endovascular treatment (EVT) of ABAO ischemic stroke, and 108 patients were identified with EMB-ABAO stroke. Among these, 96 patients were included in the final analysis. Among them, 58 (60.42%) were in the ADAPT group, and 38 (39.58%) were in the SRT group. Compared with the SRT group, the ADAPT group achieved FAR more frequently (60.34% versus 39.47%; <i>p </i>= 0.045) and a higher 90-day favorable functional outcome rate (44.83% versus 36.84%; <i>p </i>= 0.438). The median PTR time of the ADAPT group was significantly shorter than that of the SRT group (42 versus 105 min; <i>p </i>< 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In cases where EMB-ABAO is suspected, ADAPT was superior to SRT in terms of FAR rate and PTR time, but the 90-day mRS scores had no statistical significance. Given the reduced time to recanalization with ADAPT, an initial attempt at recanalization with ADAPT may be necessary before stent retriever. However, due to the study limitations, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and require further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":49174,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":"15910199241254137"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571385/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endovascular treatment of embolism-related acute basilar artery occlusion stroke: ADAPT versus stent retriever thrombectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Xinghang Lan, Zi Liang, Chunyun Shen, Weiwen Yi, Fuwen Ni, Zhenyu Zhang, Zhantao Li, Anhua Li, Geng Liao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15910199241254137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a direct aspiration first-pass technique (ADAPT) and stent retriever thrombectomy (SRT) technique in embolism-related acute basilar artery occlusion (EMB-ABAO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected data from patients with EMB-ABAO in multiple stroke centers from January 2017 to February 2024. We defined two groups of enrolled patients, the ADAPT group and the SRT group. The primary outcome was the first attempt recanalization (FAR) rate. Secondary outcomes were the puncture to recanalization (PTR) time and the 90-day favorable functional outcome. The safety outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 406 patients were screened for endovascular treatment (EVT) of ABAO ischemic stroke, and 108 patients were identified with EMB-ABAO stroke. Among these, 96 patients were included in the final analysis. Among them, 58 (60.42%) were in the ADAPT group, and 38 (39.58%) were in the SRT group. Compared with the SRT group, the ADAPT group achieved FAR more frequently (60.34% versus 39.47%; <i>p </i>= 0.045) and a higher 90-day favorable functional outcome rate (44.83% versus 36.84%; <i>p </i>= 0.438). The median PTR time of the ADAPT group was significantly shorter than that of the SRT group (42 versus 105 min; <i>p </i>< 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In cases where EMB-ABAO is suspected, ADAPT was superior to SRT in terms of FAR rate and PTR time, but the 90-day mRS scores had no statistical significance. Given the reduced time to recanalization with ADAPT, an initial attempt at recanalization with ADAPT may be necessary before stent retriever. However, due to the study limitations, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and require further study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15910199241254137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571385/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241254137\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241254137","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较栓塞相关急性基底动脉闭塞(EMB-ABAO)中直接抽吸首通技术(ADAPT)和支架取栓术(SRT)的有效性和安全性:我们收集了2017年1月至2024年2月多个卒中中心的EMB-ABAO患者数据。我们定义了两组入组患者,即 ADAPT 组和 SRT 组。主要结果是首次尝试再通率(FAR)。次要结局是穿刺到再通畅(PTR)时间和 90 天良好功能结局。安全性结果为90天全因死亡率:共有406名患者接受了ABAO缺血性卒中的血管内治疗(EVT)筛查,108名患者被确定为EMB-ABAO卒中。其中,96 名患者被纳入最终分析。其中,ADAPT 组 58 人(60.42%),SRT 组 38 人(39.58%)。与 SRT 组相比,ADAPT 组实现 FAR 的频率更高(60.34% 对 39.47%;P = 0.045),90 天良好功能预后率更高(44.83% 对 36.84%;P = 0.438)。ADAPT 组的 PTR 中位时间明显短于 SRT 组(42 分钟对 105 分钟;p 结论:ADAPT 组的 PTR 中位时间明显短于 SRT 组(42 分钟对 105 分钟;p 结论:ADAPT 组的 PTR 中位时间明显短于 SRT 组):在怀疑有 EMB-ABAO 的病例中,ADAPT 在 FAR 率和 PTR 时间方面优于 SRT,但 90 天 mRS 评分没有统计学意义。鉴于ADAPT的再通畅时间缩短,在使用支架再障器之前,可能有必要先尝试使用ADAPT进行再通畅。然而,由于研究的局限性,这些结果应被解释为初步结果,需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Endovascular treatment of embolism-related acute basilar artery occlusion stroke: ADAPT versus stent retriever thrombectomy.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a direct aspiration first-pass technique (ADAPT) and stent retriever thrombectomy (SRT) technique in embolism-related acute basilar artery occlusion (EMB-ABAO).

Methods: We collected data from patients with EMB-ABAO in multiple stroke centers from January 2017 to February 2024. We defined two groups of enrolled patients, the ADAPT group and the SRT group. The primary outcome was the first attempt recanalization (FAR) rate. Secondary outcomes were the puncture to recanalization (PTR) time and the 90-day favorable functional outcome. The safety outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality rate.

Results: A total of 406 patients were screened for endovascular treatment (EVT) of ABAO ischemic stroke, and 108 patients were identified with EMB-ABAO stroke. Among these, 96 patients were included in the final analysis. Among them, 58 (60.42%) were in the ADAPT group, and 38 (39.58%) were in the SRT group. Compared with the SRT group, the ADAPT group achieved FAR more frequently (60.34% versus 39.47%; p = 0.045) and a higher 90-day favorable functional outcome rate (44.83% versus 36.84%; p = 0.438). The median PTR time of the ADAPT group was significantly shorter than that of the SRT group (42 versus 105 min; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: In cases where EMB-ABAO is suspected, ADAPT was superior to SRT in terms of FAR rate and PTR time, but the 90-day mRS scores had no statistical significance. Given the reduced time to recanalization with ADAPT, an initial attempt at recanalization with ADAPT may be necessary before stent retriever. However, due to the study limitations, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and require further study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interventional Neuroradiology
Interventional Neuroradiology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...
期刊最新文献
Is there a simple and accessible solution to improve acute infarct core imaging? The utility of steady-state CT angiographic source images obtained from a delayed phase acquisition. The impact of pre-treatment aneurysm angulation. What happens with WEB devices at follow-up? Combined technique versus stent-retriever alone: Interaction analysis of angioarchitectural and technical features. Association of endovascular thrombectomy volume and outcomes in acute ischemic stroke: A National Inpatient Sample Study. Improved healthcare utilization and economic outcomes of chronic subdural hematoma treatment with middle meningeal artery embolization compared to conventional surgical drainage.
×
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