4.4 Article

Effect of manual aspiration thrombectomy using large-bore aspiration catheter for acute basilar artery occlusion: comparison with a stent retriever system

Journal

BMC NEUROLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-020-02013-7

Keywords

Large-bore aspiration catheter; Manual aspiration thrombectomy; Acute basilar artery occlusion; First-pass effect; Puncture-to-recanalization time

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background A large-bore aspiration catheter can be employed for recanalization of acute basilar artery occlusion. Here we compare the results of mechanical thrombectomy using a stent retriever (SR) and manual aspiration thrombectomy (MAT) using a large-bore aspiration catheter system as a first-line recanalization method in acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO). Methods The records of 50 patients with acute BAO who underwent mechanical thrombectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were assigned to one of two groups based on the first-line recanalization method. The treatment and clinical outcomes were compared. Results Sixteen (32%) patients were treated with MAT with a large-bore aspiration catheter and 34 (68%) with a SR as the first-line treatment method. The MAT group had a shorter procedure time (28 vs. 65 min; p = 0.001), higher rate of first-pass recanalization (68.8% vs. 38.2%, p = 0.044), and lower median number of passes (1 vs 2; p = 0.008) when compared with the SR group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of any hemorrhagic complication (6.3% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.754) between the groups. However, there were four cases of procedure-related subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) in the SR group and one death occurred due to massive hemorrhage. Conclusions Selection of MAT using a large-bore aspiration catheter for acute BAO may be a safe and effective first-line treatment method with higher first-pass recanalization rate and shorter procedure time than SR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available