Aspiration only versus stent retriever only thrombectomy in basilar artery occlusion: a propensity score-matched analysis of the German Stroke Registry.
Johannes Wischmann, Hanna Zimmermann, Linus Keidel, Thomas Liebig, Christian H Nolte, Lars Kellert
{"title":"Aspiration only versus stent retriever only thrombectomy in basilar artery occlusion: a propensity score-matched analysis of the German Stroke Registry.","authors":"Johannes Wischmann, Hanna Zimmermann, Linus Keidel, Thomas Liebig, Christian H Nolte, Lars Kellert","doi":"10.1136/jnis-2024-021797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endovascular treatment has become the standard care for acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO). Uncertainty persists about the optimal thrombectomy technique.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare aspiration thrombectomy with stent retriever thrombectomy in patients with BAO in a multicenter real-world patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET). Patients with isolated BAO who underwent either aspiration or stent retriever thrombectomy were compared, including propensity score matching (PSM). The primary outcome measure was the modified Rankin Scale shift analysis at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), procedure complications, and metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 13 082 patients in the GSR-ET, 387 patients (mean age 72.0±13.1 years; 45.0% female) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The thrombectomy technique was aspiration only in 195 (50.4%) and stent retriever only in 192 (49.6%) patients. Functional outcome did not differ between the groups, either before (common OR (cOR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.38) or after PSM (cOR=1.37; 95% CI 0.90 to 2.09). There was no significant difference in sICH (2.6 vs 5.5%; P=0.231; OR=0.46; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.47), but aspiration thrombectomy demonstrated fewer procedure-related complications (4.6% vs 12.5%; P=0.017), a shorter procedure duration (24 vs 48 min; P<0.001), and higher first pass recanalization rates (75.1% vs 44.8%; P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study both aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy showed equal efficacy in terms of functional outcome in patients with BAO. However, procedure complications and metrics might favor aspiration over stent retriever thrombectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":16411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"e393-e399"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171445/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-021797","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Endovascular treatment has become the standard care for acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO). Uncertainty persists about the optimal thrombectomy technique.
Objective: To compare aspiration thrombectomy with stent retriever thrombectomy in patients with BAO in a multicenter real-world patient population.
Methods: We analyzed data from the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET). Patients with isolated BAO who underwent either aspiration or stent retriever thrombectomy were compared, including propensity score matching (PSM). The primary outcome measure was the modified Rankin Scale shift analysis at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), procedure complications, and metrics.
Results: Of 13 082 patients in the GSR-ET, 387 patients (mean age 72.0±13.1 years; 45.0% female) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The thrombectomy technique was aspiration only in 195 (50.4%) and stent retriever only in 192 (49.6%) patients. Functional outcome did not differ between the groups, either before (common OR (cOR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.38) or after PSM (cOR=1.37; 95% CI 0.90 to 2.09). There was no significant difference in sICH (2.6 vs 5.5%; P=0.231; OR=0.46; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.47), but aspiration thrombectomy demonstrated fewer procedure-related complications (4.6% vs 12.5%; P=0.017), a shorter procedure duration (24 vs 48 min; P<0.001), and higher first pass recanalization rates (75.1% vs 44.8%; P<0.001).
Conclusions: In this study both aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy showed equal efficacy in terms of functional outcome in patients with BAO. However, procedure complications and metrics might favor aspiration over stent retriever thrombectomy.
背景:血管内治疗已成为急性基底动脉闭塞(BAO)的标准治疗方法。但最佳血栓切除技术仍存在不确定性:目的:在多中心真实世界患者人群中,比较抽吸式血栓切除术和支架回吸管血栓切除术对 BAO 患者的治疗效果:我们分析了德国卒中登记-血管内治疗(GSR-ET)的数据。我们对接受抽吸术或支架回流血栓切除术的孤立性 BAO 患者进行了比较,包括倾向评分匹配(PSM)。主要结局指标是90天后的改良Rankin量表移位分析。次要结果包括症状性颅内出血(sICH)、手术并发症和指标:在 13 082 名 GSR-ET 患者中,有 387 名患者(平均年龄为 72.0±13.1 岁;45.0% 为女性)符合纳入标准。195例(50.4%)患者采用吸栓技术,192例(49.6%)患者采用支架回取技术。无论是在 PSM 之前(普通 OR (cOR) 0.94;95% CI 0.64 至 1.38)还是之后(cOR=1.37;95% CI 0.90 至 2.09),两组患者的功能预后均无差异。sICH方面没有明显差异(2.6% vs 5.5%;P=0.231;OR=0.46;95% CI 0.14至1.47),但抽吸血栓切除术的手术相关并发症较少(4.6% vs 12.5%;P=0.017),手术时间较短(24分钟 vs 48分钟;PC结论:在这项研究中,抽吸术和支架回流血栓切除术对 BAO 患者的功能预后具有同等疗效。然而,手术并发症和指标可能会使抽吸术优于支架取栓术。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery (JNIS) is a leading peer review journal for scientific research and literature pertaining to the field of neurointerventional surgery. The journal launch follows growing professional interest in neurointerventional techniques for the treatment of a range of neurological and vascular problems including stroke, aneurysms, brain tumors, and spinal compression.The journal is owned by SNIS and is also the official journal of the Interventional Chapter of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Neuroradiology (ANZSNR), the Canadian Interventional Neuro Group, the Hong Kong Neurological Society (HKNS) and the Neuroradiological Society of Taiwan.