Safety and Efficacy of Aspiration Catheter CAT6 and 5 Fr Navien in the Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Zhongjun Chen, Tieping Fan, Xusheng Zhao, Teng Hu, Hengxu Qi, Di Li
{"title":"Safety and Efficacy of Aspiration Catheter CAT6 and 5 Fr Navien in the Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke.","authors":"Zhongjun Chen, Tieping Fan, Xusheng Zhao, Teng Hu, Hengxu Qi, Di Li","doi":"10.1097/NRL.0000000000000521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical thrombectomy has become a key treatment option for acute ischemic stroke. This study compared the safety and efficacy of aspiration catheter CAT6 and 5 Fr Navien.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thrombectomy was performed in103 patients with the acute internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery M1 or M2 occlusions, including the CAT6 group (n=53 with stent retriever and CAT6 aspiration) and the 5 Fr Navien group (n=50 with stent retriever and 5 Fr Navien aspiration) at the Advanced Stroke Center.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, an aspiration catheter placement success rate was achieved in 93.2% of cases, 52 (98.11%) for CAT6, and 44 (88.00%) for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.042). Overall, 17 cases (16.51%) required additional guidewire rates, 5.66% for CAT6, and 13.592% for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.002). First-pass success rate (FPSR) was achieved in 38.84% of cases overall, a rate that did not differ significantly between catheters: 45.28% for CAT6; 32.00% for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.167). Final thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b or 3 reperfusion was achieved in 91.26% of cases overall, 51 (96.23%) for CAT6, and 43 (86%) for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.066). The participants had a mean number of passes for the index thrombus of 1.956 and a median procedure time of 65.82±21.8 minutes. There was no significant difference found in 90-day good outcome (mean 42.7%, modified Rankin Score 0 to 2) and 90-day mortality (17%) between CAT6 and 5 Fr Navien.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Aspiration catheter placement success rate and first-pass success rate seemed to be higher for CAT6 and, moreover, the rate of additional guidewires was lower.</p>","PeriodicalId":49758,"journal":{"name":"Neurologist","volume":" ","pages":"41-44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NRL.0000000000000521","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mechanical thrombectomy has become a key treatment option for acute ischemic stroke. This study compared the safety and efficacy of aspiration catheter CAT6 and 5 Fr Navien.

Methods: Thrombectomy was performed in103 patients with the acute internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery M1 or M2 occlusions, including the CAT6 group (n=53 with stent retriever and CAT6 aspiration) and the 5 Fr Navien group (n=50 with stent retriever and 5 Fr Navien aspiration) at the Advanced Stroke Center.

Results: Overall, an aspiration catheter placement success rate was achieved in 93.2% of cases, 52 (98.11%) for CAT6, and 44 (88.00%) for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.042). Overall, 17 cases (16.51%) required additional guidewire rates, 5.66% for CAT6, and 13.592% for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.002). First-pass success rate (FPSR) was achieved in 38.84% of cases overall, a rate that did not differ significantly between catheters: 45.28% for CAT6; 32.00% for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.167). Final thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b or 3 reperfusion was achieved in 91.26% of cases overall, 51 (96.23%) for CAT6, and 43 (86%) for 5 Fr Navien ( P =0.066). The participants had a mean number of passes for the index thrombus of 1.956 and a median procedure time of 65.82±21.8 minutes. There was no significant difference found in 90-day good outcome (mean 42.7%, modified Rankin Score 0 to 2) and 90-day mortality (17%) between CAT6 and 5 Fr Navien.

Conclusion: Aspiration catheter placement success rate and first-pass success rate seemed to be higher for CAT6 and, moreover, the rate of additional guidewires was lower.

抽吸导管 CAT6 和 5 Fr Navien 在急性缺血性脑卒中血管内治疗中的安全性和有效性。
背景:机械血栓切除术已成为急性缺血性脑卒中的主要治疗方法。本研究比较了抽吸导管 CAT6 和 5 Fr Navien 的安全性和有效性:方法:在高级卒中中心对103例急性颈内动脉、大脑中动脉M1或M2闭塞的患者进行了血栓切除术,包括CAT6组(53例使用支架回缩器和CAT6抽吸器)和5 Fr Navien组(50例使用支架回缩器和5 Fr Navien抽吸器):总体而言,抽吸导管置入成功率为 93.2%,CAT6 为 52 例(98.11%),5 Fr Navien 为 44 例(88.00%)(P =0.042)。总体而言,17 个病例(16.51%)需要额外的导丝率,CAT6 为 5.66%,5 Fr Navien 为 13.592% ( P =0.002)。38.84% 的病例达到了首次通过成功率 (FPSR),不同导管的首次通过成功率差异不大:CAT6 为 45.28%;5 Fr Navien 为 32.00% ( P =0.167)。91.26% 的病例最终实现了脑梗塞 2b 或 3 级溶栓再灌注,CAT6 为 51 例(96.23%),5 Fr Navien 为 43 例(86%)(P =0.066)。参与者对指数血栓的平均通过次数为 1.956 次,中位手术时间为 65.82±21.8 分钟。CAT6和5 Fr Navien的90天良好预后(平均42.7%,改良Rankin评分0至2)和90天死亡率(17%)没有明显差异:结论:CAT6 抽吸导管置入成功率和首次穿刺成功率似乎更高,而且额外导丝的使用率更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurologist
Neurologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Neurologist publishes articles on topics of current interest to physicians treating patients with neurological diseases. The core of the journal is review articles focusing on clinically relevant issues. The journal also publishes case reports or case series which review the literature and put observations in perspective, as well as letters to the editor. Special features include the popular "10 Most Commonly Asked Questions" and the "Patient and Family Fact Sheet," a handy tear-out page that can be copied to hand out to patients and their caregivers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信