4.4 Article

Periprocedural aspects in mechanical recanalization for acute stroke: data from the ENDOSTROKE registry

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 1143-1151

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-013-1219-9

关键词

Stroke; Endovascular recanalization; Thrombolysis; Anesthesia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ENDOSTROKE registry aims to accompany the spreading use of endovascular stroke treatment (EVT) in academic and non-academic hospitals. This analysis focuses on preprocedural imaging, patient handling and referral, as well as on different treatment modalities in mechanical recanalization. Data for this study were from observational registry study in 12 stroke centers in Germany and Austria with online assessment of prespecified variables concerning endovascular stroke therapy. Data from 734 patients undergoing EVT were analyzed. Preferred imaging modality prior to EVT was CT (83 %) and CTA (78 %). In 95 %, EVT was performed under general anesthesia. In 55 % of patients, a combination of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis and EVT was used, followed by pure EVT (25 %), intra-arterial (IA) thrombolysis plus EVT (13 %) and IV + IA thrombolysis plus EVT (7 %). Intrahospital time delay until start of EVT was 91 and 99 min in anterior and vertebrobasilar circulation stroke, respectively. Average duration of EVT was 60 min. Overall thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 2/3 recanalization rate was 85 %. Stent retrievers were used in 75 %, being associated with higher recanalization rates than non-stent retrievers. Hemorrhagic complications (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 12 %. Overall vessel occlusion time was approximately 60 min longer in patients being referred from a primary care hospital for EVT. This study gives an overview of procedure-related factors in current EVT practice. It gives estimates on preprocedural imaging modalities, periprocedural handling, and treatment combinations used for EVT. Patient referral for EVT from primary care hospitals is associated with longer vessel occlusion times.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据