4.6 Article

Intra-arterial verapamil post-thrombectomy is feasible, safe, and neuroprotective in stroke

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 37, 期 11, 页码 3531-3543

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X17705259

关键词

Ischemic stroke; emergent large vessel occlusion; thrombectomy; verapamil; neuroprotection

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health [UL1TR001998]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large vessel ischemic stroke represents the most disabling subtype. While t-PA and endovascular thrombectomy can recanalize the occluded vessel, good clinical outcomes are not uniformly achieved. We propose that supplementing endovascular thrombectomy with superselective intra-arterial (IA) verapamil immediately following recanalization could be safe and effective. Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker, has been shown to be an effective IA adjunct in a pre-clinical mouse focal ischemia model. To demonstrate translational efficacy, mechanism, feasibility, and safety, we conducted a group of translational experiments. We performed in vivo IA dose-response evaluation in our animal stroke model with C57/Bl6 mice. We evaluated neuroprotective mechanism through in vitro primary cortical neuron (PCN) cultures. Finally, we performed a Phase I trial, SAVER-I, to evaluate feasibility and safety of administration in the human condition. IA verapamil has a likely plateau or inverted-U dose-response with a defined toxicity level in mice (LD50 16-17.5 mg/kg). Verapamil significantly prevented PCN death and deleterious ischemic effects. Finally, the SAVER-I clinical trial showed no evidence that IA verapamil increased the risk of intracranial hemorrhage or other adverse effect/procedural complication in human subjects. We conclude that superselective IA verapamil administration immediately following thrombectomy is safe and feasible, and has direct, dose-response-related benefits in ischemia.

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

4.6
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