We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Thrombectomy Using "Clamping Embolus with Semi-Retrieval" Technique in Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases : the Official Journal of National Stroke Association 2018 March
BACKGROUND: Embolization of thrombus fragments in new or downstream vascular territories is a potential adverse event in neurothrombectomy, requiring additional repeated thrombectomy attempts. This study aims to describe technical results of the thrombectomy with clamping embolus technique (TCET) method in acute ischemic stroke. This study also aims to evaluate the efficiency of mechanical thrombectomy by TCET, and to compare it with conventional stent retriever thrombectomy (CSRT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 52 consecutive patients treated between January 2015 and October 2016 for intracranial large vessel occlusion by stent retriever thrombectomy. Recanalization rates, procedure durations, and thrombectomy attempts were compared between the TCET and the CSRT groups.
RESULTS: Successful recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction [TICI] 2b or 3) with TCET was achieved in 91.7% (22 of 24) versus 92.9% (26 of 28) in the CSRT group (P = .921). To preserve the restored patency of severely affected atherosclerotic intracranial vessels, 7 and 8 patients received angioplasty or stenting in the TCET and CSRT groups, respectively. In embolic cases, the number of thrombectomy attempts with TCET was significantly lower than that obtained with CSRT (1.7 ± .2 versus 2.6 ± .5, respectively; P = .001); the one-pass thrombectomy rate was significantly higher in the TCET group than in the CSRT-treated patients (58.8% versus 25.0%, respectively; P = .014). Procedure duration was significantly shorter by TCET than by CSRT (35.8 ± 5.8 minutes versus 55.5 ± 7.2 minutes, respectively; P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of mechanical thrombectomy by TCET in acute ischemic stroke might be improved compared with CSRT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 52 consecutive patients treated between January 2015 and October 2016 for intracranial large vessel occlusion by stent retriever thrombectomy. Recanalization rates, procedure durations, and thrombectomy attempts were compared between the TCET and the CSRT groups.
RESULTS: Successful recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction [TICI] 2b or 3) with TCET was achieved in 91.7% (22 of 24) versus 92.9% (26 of 28) in the CSRT group (P = .921). To preserve the restored patency of severely affected atherosclerotic intracranial vessels, 7 and 8 patients received angioplasty or stenting in the TCET and CSRT groups, respectively. In embolic cases, the number of thrombectomy attempts with TCET was significantly lower than that obtained with CSRT (1.7 ± .2 versus 2.6 ± .5, respectively; P = .001); the one-pass thrombectomy rate was significantly higher in the TCET group than in the CSRT-treated patients (58.8% versus 25.0%, respectively; P = .014). Procedure duration was significantly shorter by TCET than by CSRT (35.8 ± 5.8 minutes versus 55.5 ± 7.2 minutes, respectively; P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of mechanical thrombectomy by TCET in acute ischemic stroke might be improved compared with CSRT.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app