J. Siegler, H. Shaikh, J. Khalife, S. Oak, Linda Zhang, M. Abdalkader, P. Klein, Thanh N. Nguyen, T. Kass-Hout, R. Morsi, J. Heit, R. Regenhardt, J. Diestro, N. Cancelliere, S. Ghozy, A. Sweid, K. Naamani, A. Amllay, L. Meyer, A. Dusart, F. Bellante, G. Forestier, A. Rouchaud, S. Saleme, C. Mounayer, J. Fiehler, A. Kühn, A. Puri, Christian Dyzmann, Peter T Kan, M. Colasurdo, G. Marnat, J. Berge, X. Barreau, I. Sibon, S. Nedelcu, N. Henninger, T. Marotta, A. Das, C. Stapleton, J. Rabinov, T. Ota, Shogo Dofuku, L. Yeo, B. Tan, J. C. Martinez‐Gutierrez, S. Salazar-Marioni, Sunil A. Sheth, L. Renieri, Carolina Capirossi, A. Mowla, S. Tjoumakaris, P. Jabbour, P. Khandelwal, A. Biswas, F. Clarençon, M. Elhorany, K. Premat, I. Valente, A. Pedicelli, J. Filipe, R. Varela, Miguel D. Quintero-Consuegra, N. Gonzalez, M. Möhlenbruch, J. Jesser, V. Costalat, Adrien ter Schiphorst, Vivek S Yedavalli, P. Harker, Lina M. Chervak, Yasmin N. Aziz, M. Bullrich, L. Sposato, B. Gory, C. Hecker, M. Killer-Oberpfalzer, C. Gries
{"title":"抽吸与支架回收作为原发性中、远端颅内闭塞的一线血管内治疗技术:一项倾向评分匹配的多中心分析","authors":"J. Siegler, H. Shaikh, J. Khalife, S. Oak, Linda Zhang, M. Abdalkader, P. Klein, Thanh N. Nguyen, T. Kass-Hout, R. Morsi, J. Heit, R. Regenhardt, J. Diestro, N. Cancelliere, S. Ghozy, A. Sweid, K. Naamani, A. Amllay, L. Meyer, A. Dusart, F. Bellante, G. Forestier, A. Rouchaud, S. Saleme, C. Mounayer, J. Fiehler, A. Kühn, A. Puri, Christian Dyzmann, Peter T Kan, M. Colasurdo, G. Marnat, J. Berge, X. Barreau, I. Sibon, S. Nedelcu, N. Henninger, T. Marotta, A. Das, C. Stapleton, J. Rabinov, T. Ota, Shogo Dofuku, L. Yeo, B. Tan, J. C. Martinez‐Gutierrez, S. Salazar-Marioni, Sunil A. Sheth, L. Renieri, Carolina Capirossi, A. Mowla, S. Tjoumakaris, P. Jabbour, P. Khandelwal, A. Biswas, F. Clarençon, M. Elhorany, K. Premat, I. Valente, A. Pedicelli, J. Filipe, R. Varela, Miguel D. Quintero-Consuegra, N. Gonzalez, M. Möhlenbruch, J. Jesser, V. Costalat, Adrien ter Schiphorst, Vivek S Yedavalli, P. Harker, Lina M. Chervak, Yasmin N. Aziz, M. Bullrich, L. Sposato, B. Gory, C. Hecker, M. Killer-Oberpfalzer, C. Gries","doi":"10.1161/svin.123.000931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n For acute proximal intracranial artery occlusions, contact aspiration may be more effective than stent‐retriever for first‐line reperfusion therapy. Due to the lack of data regarding medium vessel occlusion thrombectomy, we evaluated outcomes according to first‐line technique in a large, multicenter registry.\n \n \n \n Imaging, procedural, and clinical outcomes of patients with acute proximal medium vessel occlusions (M2, A1, or P1) or distal medium vessel occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or further) treated at 37 sites in 10 countries were analyzed according to first‐line endovascular technique (stent‐retriever versus aspiration). Multivariable logistic regression and propensity‐score matching were used to estimate the odds of the primary outcome, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b–3 (“successful recanalization”), as well as secondary outcomes (first‐pass effect, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2c‐3, intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90‐day modified Rankin scale, 90‐day mortality) between treatment groups.\n \n \n \n \n Of the 440 included patients (44.5% stent‐retriever versus 55.5% aspiration), those treated with stent‐retriever had lower baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scale scores (median 8 versus 9;\n P\n <0.01), higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (median 13 versus 11;\n P\n =0.02), and nonsignificantly fewer medium‐distal occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or other: 17.4% versus 23.8%;\n P\n =0.10). Use of a stent‐retriever was associated with 15% lower odds of successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; [95% CI 0.74–0.98];\n P\n =0.02), but this was not significant after multivariable adjustment in the total cohort (adjusted OR, 0.88; [95% CI 0.72–1.09];\n P\n =0.24), or in the propensity‐score matched cohort (n=105 in each group) (adjusted OR, 0.94; [95% CI 0.75–1.18];\n P\n =0.60). There was no significant association between technique and secondary outcomes in the propensity‐score matched adjusted models.\n \n \n \n \n In this large, diverse, multinational medium vessel occlusion cohort, we found no significant difference in imaging or clinical outcomes with aspiration versus stent‐retriever thrombectomy.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aspiration Versus Stent‐Retriever as First‐Line Endovascular Therapy Technique for Primary Medium and Distal Intracranial Occlusions: A Propensity‐Score Matched Multicenter Analysis\",\"authors\":\"J. Siegler, H. Shaikh, J. Khalife, S. Oak, Linda Zhang, M. Abdalkader, P. Klein, Thanh N. Nguyen, T. Kass-Hout, R. Morsi, J. Heit, R. Regenhardt, J. Diestro, N. Cancelliere, S. Ghozy, A. Sweid, K. Naamani, A. Amllay, L. Meyer, A. Dusart, F. Bellante, G. Forestier, A. Rouchaud, S. Saleme, C. Mounayer, J. Fiehler, A. Kühn, A. Puri, Christian Dyzmann, Peter T Kan, M. Colasurdo, G. Marnat, J. Berge, X. Barreau, I. Sibon, S. Nedelcu, N. Henninger, T. Marotta, A. Das, C. Stapleton, J. Rabinov, T. Ota, Shogo Dofuku, L. Yeo, B. Tan, J. C. Martinez‐Gutierrez, S. Salazar-Marioni, Sunil A. Sheth, L. Renieri, Carolina Capirossi, A. Mowla, S. Tjoumakaris, P. Jabbour, P. Khandelwal, A. Biswas, F. Clarençon, M. Elhorany, K. Premat, I. Valente, A. Pedicelli, J. Filipe, R. Varela, Miguel D. Quintero-Consuegra, N. Gonzalez, M. Möhlenbruch, J. Jesser, V. Costalat, Adrien ter Schiphorst, Vivek S Yedavalli, P. Harker, Lina M. Chervak, Yasmin N. Aziz, M. Bullrich, L. Sposato, B. Gory, C. Hecker, M. Killer-Oberpfalzer, C. Gries\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/svin.123.000931\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n For acute proximal intracranial artery occlusions, contact aspiration may be more effective than stent‐retriever for first‐line reperfusion therapy. Due to the lack of data regarding medium vessel occlusion thrombectomy, we evaluated outcomes according to first‐line technique in a large, multicenter registry.\\n \\n \\n \\n Imaging, procedural, and clinical outcomes of patients with acute proximal medium vessel occlusions (M2, A1, or P1) or distal medium vessel occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or further) treated at 37 sites in 10 countries were analyzed according to first‐line endovascular technique (stent‐retriever versus aspiration). Multivariable logistic regression and propensity‐score matching were used to estimate the odds of the primary outcome, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b–3 (“successful recanalization”), as well as secondary outcomes (first‐pass effect, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2c‐3, intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90‐day modified Rankin scale, 90‐day mortality) between treatment groups.\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n Of the 440 included patients (44.5% stent‐retriever versus 55.5% aspiration), those treated with stent‐retriever had lower baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scale scores (median 8 versus 9;\\n P\\n <0.01), higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (median 13 versus 11;\\n P\\n =0.02), and nonsignificantly fewer medium‐distal occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or other: 17.4% versus 23.8%;\\n P\\n =0.10). Use of a stent‐retriever was associated with 15% lower odds of successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; [95% CI 0.74–0.98];\\n P\\n =0.02), but this was not significant after multivariable adjustment in the total cohort (adjusted OR, 0.88; [95% CI 0.72–1.09];\\n P\\n =0.24), or in the propensity‐score matched cohort (n=105 in each group) (adjusted OR, 0.94; [95% CI 0.75–1.18];\\n P\\n =0.60). There was no significant association between technique and secondary outcomes in the propensity‐score matched adjusted models.\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n In this large, diverse, multinational medium vessel occlusion cohort, we found no significant difference in imaging or clinical outcomes with aspiration versus stent‐retriever thrombectomy.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":74875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.123.000931\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.123.000931","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: 1
摘要
对于急性颅内近端动脉闭塞,接触穿刺在一线再灌注治疗中可能比支架回收器更有效。由于缺乏关于中血管闭塞血栓切除术的数据,我们根据一线技术在大型多中心登记中评估结果。根据一线血管内技术(支架回收器与吸入法),分析了10个国家37个部位的急性近端中血管闭塞(M2、A1或P1)或远端中血管闭塞(M3、A2、P2或更远)患者的影像学、手术和临床结果。使用多变量logistic回归和倾向评分匹配来估计治疗组之间的主要结局、脑梗死扩大溶栓评分2b-3(“成功再通”)以及次要结局(一次通过效应、脑梗死扩大溶栓评分2c - 3、脑出血、90天修正兰金量表、90天死亡率)的几率。在440例纳入的患者中(44.5%支架置换器对55.5%吸入性支架置换器),接受支架置换器治疗的患者基线阿尔伯塔卒中项目早期计算机断层扫描评分较低(中位数为8比9;P <0.01),美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表得分较高(中位数13比11;P =0.02),中远端闭塞(M3、A2、P2或其他:17.4%比23.8%;P = 0.10)。使用支架回收器与再通成功几率降低15%相关(优势比[OR], 0.85;[95% ci 0.74-0.98];P =0.02),但在整个队列中进行多变量调整后,这一差异不显著(调整OR为0.88;[95% ci 0.72-1.09];P =0.24),或倾向评分匹配的队列(每组n=105)(调整or为0.94;[95% ci 0.75-1.18];P = 0.60)。在倾向得分匹配调整模型中,技术和次要结果之间没有显著关联。在这个大型的、多样化的、跨国的中等血管闭塞队列中,我们发现抽吸与支架取栓术在影像学或临床结果上没有显著差异。
Aspiration Versus Stent‐Retriever as First‐Line Endovascular Therapy Technique for Primary Medium and Distal Intracranial Occlusions: A Propensity‐Score Matched Multicenter Analysis
For acute proximal intracranial artery occlusions, contact aspiration may be more effective than stent‐retriever for first‐line reperfusion therapy. Due to the lack of data regarding medium vessel occlusion thrombectomy, we evaluated outcomes according to first‐line technique in a large, multicenter registry.
Imaging, procedural, and clinical outcomes of patients with acute proximal medium vessel occlusions (M2, A1, or P1) or distal medium vessel occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or further) treated at 37 sites in 10 countries were analyzed according to first‐line endovascular technique (stent‐retriever versus aspiration). Multivariable logistic regression and propensity‐score matching were used to estimate the odds of the primary outcome, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b–3 (“successful recanalization”), as well as secondary outcomes (first‐pass effect, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2c‐3, intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90‐day modified Rankin scale, 90‐day mortality) between treatment groups.
Of the 440 included patients (44.5% stent‐retriever versus 55.5% aspiration), those treated with stent‐retriever had lower baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scale scores (median 8 versus 9;
P
<0.01), higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (median 13 versus 11;
P
=0.02), and nonsignificantly fewer medium‐distal occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or other: 17.4% versus 23.8%;
P
=0.10). Use of a stent‐retriever was associated with 15% lower odds of successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; [95% CI 0.74–0.98];
P
=0.02), but this was not significant after multivariable adjustment in the total cohort (adjusted OR, 0.88; [95% CI 0.72–1.09];
P
=0.24), or in the propensity‐score matched cohort (n=105 in each group) (adjusted OR, 0.94; [95% CI 0.75–1.18];
P
=0.60). There was no significant association between technique and secondary outcomes in the propensity‐score matched adjusted models.
In this large, diverse, multinational medium vessel occlusion cohort, we found no significant difference in imaging or clinical outcomes with aspiration versus stent‐retriever thrombectomy.