Abstract 045: First‐Line Mechanical Thrombectomy Device in Intracranial Atherosclerotic Large Vessel Occlusion

Introduction First‐line mechanical thrombectomy devices are associated with heterogeneous functional and safety outcomes in large vessel ischemic stroke. Successful recanalization rates are influenced by associated technical difficulties of navigating torturous vessels and interactions with recalcitrant thrombi of atherosclerotic lesions. As such, studies are required to evaluate these devices to determine the optimal initial thrombectomy approach in patients with these lesions. Method This is an analysis of the RESCUE‐ICAS international prospective observational registry which included patients with residual stenosis (50‐99% reperfusion) following successful mechanical thrombectomy. Patients were dichotomized into those receiving first‐line aspiration catheter or stentriever devices. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were defined as excellent functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 0‐2) and procedure times, respectively. Primary safety outcomes were defined symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rates. Multivariate analysis was performed on the primary outcome. Results There were four‐hundred‐twenty‐six patients included in this analysis with 218 and 208 patients receiving first‐line aspiration catheter and stentriever devices, respectively. Patients were generally older (median 68 years old) Caucasian (59%) males (61%). Patients in the aspiration catheter cohort were more likely to have dyslipidemia (55% vs 45% p = 0.04) and prior stroke (28% vs 19% p = 0.03) compared to the stentriever cohort; no other significant differences were noted. At 90‐days, there were equivalent rates of excellent functional outcomes in the aspiration and stentriever cohorts (35.4% vs 31.4% p = 0.48) and redemonstrated following multivariate analysis (OR 0.90 95% CI 0.59 ‐ 1.37; p = 0.62). Yet, aspiration catheters were noted to have shorter procedure times (45 mins vs 62 mins p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards lower sICH rates in the aspiration cohort (5% vs 9.6% p =0.07) compared to the stentriever cohort. Conclusion There were equivalent primary functional outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic large vessel occlusions treated with either aspiration catheter or stentriever devices yet, procedure times favored aspiration catheters. There was a trend towards lower symptomatic ICH rates with first‐line aspiration catheters. Further randomized studies are required to further evaluate procedural benefits and risks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Stroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology
Published
2024-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.04.suppl_1.045
Primary Topic
Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 045: First‐Line Mechanical Thrombectomy Device in Intracranial Atherosclerotic Large Vessel Occlusion

Saad Al Kasab, A Mierzwa, E. Almallouhi, Mouhammad A. Jumaa
Stroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology
Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
article

Abstract 045: First‐Line Mechanical Thrombectomy Device in Intracranial Atherosclerotic Large Vessel Occlusion

Saad Al Kasab, A Mierzwa, E. Almallouhi, Mouhammad A. Jumaa
article en

Abstract

Introduction First‐line mechanical thrombectomy devices are associated with heterogeneous functional and safety outcomes in large vessel ischemic stroke. Successful recanalization rates are influenced by associated technical difficulties of navigating torturous vessels and interactions with recalcitrant thrombi of atherosclerotic lesions. As such, studies are required to evaluate these devices to determine the optimal initial thrombectomy approach in patients with these lesions. Method This is an analysis of the RESCUE‐ICAS international prospective observational registry which included patients with residual stenosis (50‐99% reperfusion) following successful mechanical thrombectomy. Patients were dichotomized into those receiving first‐line aspiration catheter or stentriever devices. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were defined as excellent functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 0‐2) and procedure times, respectively. Primary safety outcomes were defined symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rates. Multivariate analysis was performed on the primary outcome. Results There were four‐hundred‐twenty‐six patients included in this analysis with 218 and 208 patients receiving first‐line aspiration catheter and stentriever devices, respectively. Patients were generally older (median 68 years old) Caucasian (59%) males (61%). Patients in the aspiration catheter cohort were more likely to have dyslipidemia (55% vs 45% p = 0.04) and prior stroke (28% vs 19% p = 0.03) compared to the stentriever cohort; no other significant differences were noted. At 90‐days, there were equivalent rates of excellent functional outcomes in the aspiration and stentriever cohorts (35.4% vs 31.4% p = 0.48) and redemonstrated following multivariate analysis (OR 0.90 95% CI 0.59 ‐ 1.37; p = 0.62). Yet, aspiration catheters were noted to have shorter procedure times (45 mins vs 62 mins p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards lower sICH rates in the aspiration cohort (5% vs 9.6% p =0.07) compared to the stentriever cohort. Conclusion There were equivalent primary functional outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic large vessel occlusions treated with either aspiration catheter or stentriever devices yet, procedure times favored aspiration catheters. There was a trend towards lower symptomatic ICH rates with first‐line aspiration catheters. Further randomized studies are required to further evaluate procedural benefits and risks.

Stroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologyVol. 4(S1)
Sewanee: The University of the South (US), Medical University of South Carolina (US), ProMedica Charles and Virginia Hickman Hospital (US), University of Toledo (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.