4.3 Article

Prognostic factors for outcomes after mechanical thrombectomy with solitaire stent

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 252-259

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2013.04.001

Keywords

Stroke; Prognostic factors; Thrombectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: Endovascular mechanical thrombectomy is emerging as a promising therapeutic approach for acute ischemic stroke. This study was aimed at identifying factors influencing outcomes after thrombectomy with a Solitaire stent device. Materials and methods: Forty-five consecutive patients treated with thrombectomy using Solitaire FR were retrospectively included. Clinical, imaging and logistic variables were analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables influencing clinical outcome, based on discharge NIHSS score change and mRS at 3 months. Results: Patient mean age and initial NIHSS score was 58 years (range 24-88) and 17 (range 6-32), respectively. An MRI was performed for 80% of patients, showing severe DWI lesion for 28% of patients and associated FLAIR hyperintensity for 58% of patients. Mean time from symptom onset to recanalization was 299 min for the 32 ACO and 473 min for the 13 PCO. Angiographic efficacy (TICI 2b-3) was achieved for 93% of patients and good clinical outcomes at discharge and at 3 months (mRS <= 2) were achieved for 49% and 58% of patients, respectively. Independent prognostic factors for predicting good clinical outcomes at discharge were a short time to recanalization and FLAIR negativity. At 3 months, they were a short time to recanalization and patient age. DWI lesion severity was an associated prognostic factor. Conclusion: Two main prognostic factors for predicting a good clinical outcome after thrombectomy at 3 months were short time from symptom onset to recanalization and patient age. (C) 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available