4.5 Article

Higher Degrees of Recanalization after Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Stroke Are Associated with Improved Outcome and Decreased Mortality: Pooled Analysis of the MERCI and Multi MERCI Trials

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 2170-2174

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2709

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although the combined end point of partial and complete recanalization is a well-established predictor of good outcome following acute stroke intervention, few investigations have evaluated the effect of the degree of recanalization. We hypothesized that greater degrees of recanalization would be associated with a higher likelihood of favorable functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from MERCI and Multi MERCI prospective single-arm trials of endovascular mechanical thrombectomy for acute stroke were pooled. The TIMI score was used to define the degree of recanalization, and a favorable outcome was defined as an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were included. Age, stroke severity, and site of arterial occlusion did not differ among groups stratified by the TIMI score. The unadjusted OR for a favorable outcome increased significantly as the TIMI score increased from 0 to 1 (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 1.7-20.0; P = .007) and from 2 to 3 (OR. 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5; P = .011 and the likelihood of death decreased significantly as the TIMI score increased from 2 to 3 (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-4.3; P = .05). In multivariate analysis, each increase in TIMI grade increased the odds of a good outcome 2.6-fold (95% CI, 1.9-3.4, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Increases in the TIMI score were highly associated with improved outcomes. This finding not only provides additional evidence that restoration of blood flow improves clinical outcomes in ischemic stroke but also suggests that interventionalists should strive for complete revascularization when they provide endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke.

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

4.5
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