Chen Yimin, Sahoo Anurag, Cai Xiaodong, Mofatteh Mohammad, Mian Asim Z, Lin Hao, Yang Shuiquan, Nguyen Thanh N, Abdalkader Mohamad
Department of Neurology and Advanced National Stroke Center, Foshan Sanshui District People's Hospital, Foshan, China; Neuro International Collaboration, Foshan, China.
Department of Neurology, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2023 Nov;179:e281-e287. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.08.077. Epub 2023 Aug 23.
Challenging arterial anatomy may prevent timely endovascular treatment (EVT) of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) through a transfemoral approach prompting the use of alternative access routes. We determined the crossover rate from femoral to radial access during EVT of AIS due to large vessel occlusion and identified its radiological predictors and clinical outcomes.
Retrospective review of all AIS patients who underwent EVT at a single institution from January 2016 to March 2021 was performed. A primary and a secondary radial group depending on whether the radial approach was used primarily or secondary to failure of transfemoral approach were compared.
A total of 358 consecutive AIS patients with large vessel occlusion underwent EVT. Radial approach was used primarily in 6 patients (primary radial [PR]) and secondarily in 16 patients (secondary radial [SR]). The rate of femoral to radial crossover was 4.7%. Type III arch and bovine arch configurations were the most common characteristic in the crossover group. Radial access was successful to secure intracranial access in all cases of PR and in 87% of crossover cases. There was no significant difference between the rates of successful reperfusion (53.3% SR, 83% PR, P = 0.20), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on discharge (19 SR, 18 PR group, P = 0.90), or good outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 (13.3% SR, 33.3% PR, P = 0.29).
A radial approach can be considered during EVT of AIS due to large vessel occlusion either primarily or secondarily with a lower threshold to switch from the femoral approach in cases of challenging anatomy.
复杂的动脉解剖结构可能会阻碍通过经股动脉途径对急性缺血性卒中(AIS)进行及时的血管内治疗(EVT),从而促使采用其他入路途径。我们确定了因大血管闭塞接受AIS-EVT治疗时从股动脉入路转换为桡动脉入路的交叉率,并确定了其影像学预测因素和临床结局。
对2016年1月至2021年3月在单一机构接受EVT治疗的所有AIS患者进行回顾性研究。根据桡动脉入路是主要使用还是在股动脉入路失败后使用,将患者分为原发性桡动脉组和继发性桡动脉组,并进行比较。
共有358例连续性大血管闭塞的AIS患者接受了EVT治疗。6例患者主要采用桡动脉入路(原发性桡动脉组[PR]),16例患者在股动脉入路失败后采用桡动脉入路(继发性桡动脉组[SR])。股动脉至桡动脉的交叉率为4.7%。III型主动脉弓和牛型主动脉弓构型是交叉组最常见的特征。在原发性桡动脉组的所有病例以及87%的交叉病例中,桡动脉入路成功实现了颅内血管通路。成功再灌注率(SR组为53.3%,PR组为83%,P = 0.20)、出院时美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分(SR组为19分,PR组为18分,P = 0.90)或改良Rankin量表评分为0-2分定义的良好结局率(SR组为13.3%,PR组为33.3%,P = 0.29)之间均无显著差异。
对于因大血管闭塞接受AIS-EVT治疗的患者,无论是主要还是在解剖结构复杂的情况下以较低阈值从股动脉入路转换时,均可考虑采用桡动脉入路。