4.4 Article

Initial experience with the CatchView thrombectomy device for acute ischemic stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages 946-950

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016784

Keywords

stroke; thrombectomy; stent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The initial experience with the CatchView (CV) thrombectomy device in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) showed promising outcomes in terms of successful recanalization and good clinical results on day 90.
Background We report our initial experience with the CatchView (CV) thrombectomy device in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods A retrospective analysis of 53 of 284 AIS patients (mean age 66.6 +/- 14.8 years, range 37-94) treated with a CV device between January 2019 and February 2020 was performed. The baseline characteristics (gender, age, comorbidities, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) administration, and occlusion localization) of these subjects were recorded. Modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) scores of 2b and 3 were considered to indicate successful recanalization, and subjects with a modified Rankin Scale score of <= 2 on day 90 was considered a good clinical outcomes. Results The mean NIHSS score was 12.3 +/- 3. Successful recanalization was achieved in 45 subjects (84.90%), and the rate of good clinical outcomes on day 90 was 43.39%. The secondary distal embolus rate was 5.66%. Symptomatic hemorrhage was observed in 3.77% of the subjects, and the mortality rate was 13.2%. Conclusions Mechanical thrombectomy devices include a wide array of endovascular tools for removing clots in AIS patients. In terms of successful recanalization and good clinical outcomes on day 90, our initial experience with the CV devices was encouraging.

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