Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 May;11(5):439-442. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014060. Epub 2018 Nov 24.
Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a highly effective therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, complete recanalization of the occluded vessel cannot be achieved in all patients, leading to poor clinical outcome. We analyzed the reasons for failed recanalization to help direct future improvements in therapy.
648 consecutive stroke patients with LVO and an MT attempt were retrospectively analyzed for none or minimal recanalization, assessed according to the Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score (0/1). Procedural parameters were evaluated in a standardized approach. Among other variables, number of retrieval attempts, devices, duration of the intervention, and rescue methods were analyzed.
TICI 0/1 was observed in 72/648 patients (11%). In these patients, the thrombus could not be reached in 21% (n=15/72), was reached but not passed in 21% (n=15/72), and was reached and passed in 58% (n=42/72). Only a minor degree of initial recanalization was achieved in 19% (n=8/42) of patients with a reached occlusion during the course of the intervention. Furthermore, a higher number of passes with a single retriever device led to significant prolongation of the intervention. Therefore, major reasons for failed endovascular recanalization were difficult anatomical access and hard or resistant occlusions that might reflect hard thrombi or pre-existing atherosclerotic stenosis. Procedural complications such as dissection or perforation played a minor role.
In stroke patients with failed MT attempts, approximately 60% of occlusions can be passed. In such cases, rescue therapy might be considered to improve recanalization and clinical outcome. Further development of access devices might help in the remaining cases where the microcatheter could not be manipulated to or through the occlusion.
机械血栓切除术(MT)是治疗因大血管闭塞(LVO)导致的急性缺血性脑卒中的一种非常有效的治疗方法。然而,并非所有患者的闭塞血管都能完全再通,导致临床预后不佳。我们分析了再通失败的原因,以帮助指导未来治疗方法的改进。
回顾性分析了 648 例接受 LVO 机械取栓术的连续卒中患者,根据血栓溶解治疗脑梗死(TICI)评分(0/1)评估为无再通或再通程度低。采用标准化方法评估手术参数。在其他变量中,分析了取栓次数、器械、干预持续时间和挽救方法。
72/648 例(11%)患者 TICI 0/1。在这些患者中,21%(n=15/72)无法到达血栓,21%(n=15/72)到达但未能通过血栓,58%(n=42/72)到达并通过血栓。在干预过程中,仅 19%(n=8/42)到达闭塞的患者获得了轻微程度的初始再通。此外,单次使用取栓器进行多次取栓会显著延长干预时间。因此,血管内再通失败的主要原因是难以到达的解剖部位和坚硬或有抵抗的闭塞,这可能反映了硬血栓或先前存在的动脉粥样硬化狭窄。手术并发症如夹层或穿孔则起次要作用。
在机械取栓术失败的卒中患者中,约 60%的闭塞可以通过。在这种情况下,可能需要考虑挽救性治疗以改善再通率和临床预后。进一步开发进入器械可能有助于解决其余无法将微导管操作至或通过闭塞的病例。