4.5 Article

Factors Promoting Futile Recanalization After Stent Retriever Thrombectomy for Stroke Affecting the Anterior Circulation: A Retrospective Analysis

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 133, Issue -, Pages E576-E582

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.09.098

Keywords

Acute anterior circulation; Futile recanalization; Large vessel occlusion; Stent retriever thrombectomy

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation for Colleges and Universities of Anhui Province [KJ2018A1016]
  2. Excellent Young Talents Foundation for Colleges and Universities of Anhui Province [gxyq2019039]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with recanalization after stent retriever thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 56 patients with an acute anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion who underwent successful stent retriever thrombectomy. Patients were classified as successful recanalization or futile recanalization at the follow-up. Univariate analysis and binary logic regression analysis were used to explore the association between patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and futile recanalization. RESULTS: The rate of futile recanalization was signifi-ntly higher after stent retrieval thrombectomy in patients with an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT (ASPECT) score <= 7 points versus >7 points (P < 0.001), >= 5 passes with the stent retriever versus <5 passes with the stent retriever (P = 0.036), or a longer recanalization time (P = 0.008). The influence of number of stent retriever pass is foremost, followed by ASPECT and occurrence to recanalization. CONCLUSIONS: Improving technical expertise with mechanical thrombectomy and shortening the therapeutic time window may improve the prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available