Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+ and School for Cardiovascular Diseases (CARIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Department of Neurology, Zuyderland Medical Center Sittard-Geleen, Sittard, the Netherlands.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2024 Dec;33(12):108033. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.108033. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
Despite literature suggesting benefits of a balloon guide catheter (BGC) in stroke thrombectomy, BGCs are not routinely used. This study aimed to get insights in the use of a BGC and the reasons (not) to inflate the balloon.
Data were used of the Maastricht Stroke Quality Registry (MaSQ-Registry), a prospective registry for quality purposes of stroke patients treated between September 2020-February 2023. Additionally, a Dutch nationwide questionnaire was sent among all stroke treating physicians of the Dutch Society of Interventional Radiology (NVIR). Information on the use and reasons for selecting a (non-)BGC and using the BGC was collected.
Out of 511 patients registered in the MaSQ-Registry, 458 were included. In 69% (n=317) of the patients a BGC was used; in 68% (n=214) the balloon was not inflated. In 95% of the posterior circulation occlusions a non-BGC was used. In total 47 treating physicians from sixteen stroke centers responded to the questionnaire. 51% (n=24) preferred a non-BGC and 30% (n=14) never used a BGC. 52% and 18% of the BGC-users estimated they inflate the balloon in 80-100% and 0-20% of the times, respectively. The main reasons reported for not inflating the balloon were when the BGC was occlusive (47%) or not placeable (34%) in the carotid artery.
This study shows variation in the use of (non-)BGC use with and without inflated balloon among treating physicians in the Netherlands, highlighting current limited consensus regarding the use of (non-)BGCs among stroke treating physicians.
尽管有文献表明球囊引导导管（BGC）在血栓切除术治疗中风中的益处，但 BGC 并未常规使用。本研究旨在深入了解 BGC 的使用情况以及充气和不充气的原因。
本研究使用了 Maastricht Stroke Quality Registry（MaSQ-Registry）的数据，该数据库是一个针对 2020 年 9 月至 2023 年 2 月期间接受治疗的中风患者的质量目的的前瞻性注册。此外，还向荷兰介入放射学学会（NVIR）的所有中风治疗医师发送了一份荷兰全国性问卷。收集了关于选择（非）BGC 以及使用 BGC 的使用情况和原因的信息。
在 MaSQ-Registry 注册的 511 名患者中，有 458 名患者被纳入本研究。在 69%（n=317）的患者中使用了 BGC；在 68%（n=214）的患者中未充气。在所有后循环闭塞中，95%的患者未使用 BGC。共有 16 个中风中心的 47 名治疗医师回答了问卷。51%（n=24）的医师更喜欢使用非 BGC，而 30%（n=14）的医师从未使用过 BGC。使用 BGC 的医师中有 52%和 18%分别估计他们在 80-100%和 0-20%的时间内充气。不充气的主要原因是 BGC 在颈内动脉中闭塞（47%）或无法放置（34%）。
本研究表明，荷兰的治疗医师在使用（非）BGC 以及充气和不充气的 BGC 方面存在差异，突出了目前中风治疗医师在使用（非）BGC 方面的共识有限。
