联合支架取出器和接触抽吸的机械血栓切除术与单独支架取出器治疗急性大血管闭塞的比较:来自ANGEL-ACT注册中心的数据。

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Stroke and Vascular Neurology Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-31 DOI:10.1136/svn-2022-001765
Xiaochuan Huo, Dapeng Sun, Mingkai Hu, Raynald, Baixue Jia, Xu Tong, Gaoting Ma, Anxin Wang, Ning Ma, Feng Gao, Dapeng Mo, Zhongrong Miao
{"title":"联合支架取出器和接触抽吸的机械血栓切除术与单独支架取出器治疗急性大血管闭塞的比较:来自ANGEL-ACT注册中心的数据。","authors":"Xiaochuan Huo,&nbsp;Dapeng Sun,&nbsp;Mingkai Hu,&nbsp;Raynald,&nbsp;Baixue Jia,&nbsp;Xu Tong,&nbsp;Gaoting Ma,&nbsp;Anxin Wang,&nbsp;Ning Ma,&nbsp;Feng Gao,&nbsp;Dapeng Mo,&nbsp;Zhongrong Miao","doi":"10.1136/svn-2022-001765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>An analysis of the ASTER 2 trial revealed similar final recanalisation levels and clinical outcomes in acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke between stent retrieval (SR) alone as a first-line mechanical thrombectomy (MT) technique (SR alone first-line) and concomitant use of contact aspiration (CA) plus SR as a first-line MT technique (SR+CA first-line). The purpose of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of SR+CA first-line with those of SR alone first-line for patients with LVO in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted the present study by using the data from the ANGEL-ACT registry. We divided the selected patients into SR+CA first-line and SR alone first-line groups. We performed logistic regression and generalised linear models with adjustments to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes, including successful/complete recanalisation after the first technique alone and all procedures, first-pass successful/complete recanalisation, number of passes, 90-day modified Rankin Scale, procedure duration, rescue treatment and intracranial haemorrhage within 24 hours.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1233 enrolled patients, 1069 (86.7%) received SR alone first-line, and 164 (13.3%) received SR+CA first-line. SR+CA first-line was associated with more thrombectomy passes (3 (2-4) vs 2 (1-2); β=1.77, 95% CI=1.55 to 1.99, p<0.001), and longer procedure duration (86 (60-129) min vs 80 (50-122) min; β=10.76, 95% CI=1.08 to 20.43, p=0.029) than SR alone first-line group. Other outcomes were comparable (all p>0.05) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients undergoing SR+CA first-line had more thrombectomy passes and longer procedure duration than patients undergoing SR alone first-line. Additionally, we suggested that SR+CA first-line was not superior to SR alone first-line in final recanalisation level, first-pass recanalisation level and 90-day clinical outcomes in the Chinese population.</p>","PeriodicalId":22021,"journal":{"name":"Stroke and Vascular Neurology","volume":"8 4","pages":"318-326"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5d/a6/svn-2022-001765.PMC10512085.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanical thrombectomy with combined stent retriever and contact aspiration versus stent retriever alone for acute large vessel occlusion: data from ANGEL-ACT registry.\",\"authors\":\"Xiaochuan Huo,&nbsp;Dapeng Sun,&nbsp;Mingkai Hu,&nbsp;Raynald,&nbsp;Baixue Jia,&nbsp;Xu Tong,&nbsp;Gaoting Ma,&nbsp;Anxin Wang,&nbsp;Ning Ma,&nbsp;Feng Gao,&nbsp;Dapeng Mo,&nbsp;Zhongrong Miao\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/svn-2022-001765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>An analysis of the ASTER 2 trial revealed similar final recanalisation levels and clinical outcomes in acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke between stent retrieval (SR) alone as a first-line mechanical thrombectomy (MT) technique (SR alone first-line) and concomitant use of contact aspiration (CA) plus SR as a first-line MT technique (SR+CA first-line). The purpose of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of SR+CA first-line with those of SR alone first-line for patients with LVO in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted the present study by using the data from the ANGEL-ACT registry. We divided the selected patients into SR+CA first-line and SR alone first-line groups. We performed logistic regression and generalised linear models with adjustments to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes, including successful/complete recanalisation after the first technique alone and all procedures, first-pass successful/complete recanalisation, number of passes, 90-day modified Rankin Scale, procedure duration, rescue treatment and intracranial haemorrhage within 24 hours.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1233 enrolled patients, 1069 (86.7%) received SR alone first-line, and 164 (13.3%) received SR+CA first-line. SR+CA first-line was associated with more thrombectomy passes (3 (2-4) vs 2 (1-2); β=1.77, 95% CI=1.55 to 1.99, p<0.001), and longer procedure duration (86 (60-129) min vs 80 (50-122) min; β=10.76, 95% CI=1.08 to 20.43, p=0.029) than SR alone first-line group. Other outcomes were comparable (all p>0.05) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients undergoing SR+CA first-line had more thrombectomy passes and longer procedure duration than patients undergoing SR alone first-line. Additionally, we suggested that SR+CA first-line was not superior to SR alone first-line in final recanalisation level, first-pass recanalisation level and 90-day clinical outcomes in the Chinese population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stroke and Vascular Neurology\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"318-326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5d/a6/svn-2022-001765.PMC10512085.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stroke and Vascular Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2022-001765\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke and Vascular Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2022-001765","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景和目的:对ASTER 2试验的分析显示,在急性大血管闭塞(LVO)卒中中,支架取出(SR)单独作为一线机械血栓切除术(MT)技术(SR单独作为一线)和同时使用接触抽吸(CA)加SR作为一线MT技术(SR+CA一线)的最终再通水平和临床结果相似。本研究的目的是比较SR+CA一线和单独SR一线治疗中国LVO患者的安全性和有效性。方法:我们使用ANGEL-ACT注册中心的数据进行本研究。我们将选定的患者分为SR+CA一线组和单纯SR一线组。我们进行了逻辑回归和广义线性模型,并对其进行了调整,以比较血管造影和临床结果,包括第一次单独技术和所有手术后成功/完全再通、第一次成功/完全复通、通过次数、90天改良Rankin量表、手术持续时间、抢救治疗和24小时内颅内出血 小时。结果:在1233名入选患者中,1069名(86.7%)接受了SR单独一线治疗,164名(13.3%)接受了SR+CA一线治疗。SR+CA一线与更多的血栓切除通过相关(3(2-4)vs 2(1-2);β=1.77,95%CI=1.55~1.99,p0.05)。结论:一线接受SR+CA的患者比单独一线接受SR的患者有更多的血栓切除通道和更长的手术时间。此外,我们认为,在中国人群中,SR+CA一线在最终再通管水平、首次再通管程度和90天临床结果方面并不优于单独的SR一线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Mechanical thrombectomy with combined stent retriever and contact aspiration versus stent retriever alone for acute large vessel occlusion: data from ANGEL-ACT registry.

Mechanical thrombectomy with combined stent retriever and contact aspiration versus stent retriever alone for acute large vessel occlusion: data from ANGEL-ACT registry.

Mechanical thrombectomy with combined stent retriever and contact aspiration versus stent retriever alone for acute large vessel occlusion: data from ANGEL-ACT registry.

Background and purpose: An analysis of the ASTER 2 trial revealed similar final recanalisation levels and clinical outcomes in acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke between stent retrieval (SR) alone as a first-line mechanical thrombectomy (MT) technique (SR alone first-line) and concomitant use of contact aspiration (CA) plus SR as a first-line MT technique (SR+CA first-line). The purpose of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of SR+CA first-line with those of SR alone first-line for patients with LVO in China.

Methods: We conducted the present study by using the data from the ANGEL-ACT registry. We divided the selected patients into SR+CA first-line and SR alone first-line groups. We performed logistic regression and generalised linear models with adjustments to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes, including successful/complete recanalisation after the first technique alone and all procedures, first-pass successful/complete recanalisation, number of passes, 90-day modified Rankin Scale, procedure duration, rescue treatment and intracranial haemorrhage within 24 hours.

Results: Of the 1233 enrolled patients, 1069 (86.7%) received SR alone first-line, and 164 (13.3%) received SR+CA first-line. SR+CA first-line was associated with more thrombectomy passes (3 (2-4) vs 2 (1-2); β=1.77, 95% CI=1.55 to 1.99, p<0.001), and longer procedure duration (86 (60-129) min vs 80 (50-122) min; β=10.76, 95% CI=1.08 to 20.43, p=0.029) than SR alone first-line group. Other outcomes were comparable (all p>0.05) between the two groups.

Conclusions: Patients undergoing SR+CA first-line had more thrombectomy passes and longer procedure duration than patients undergoing SR alone first-line. Additionally, we suggested that SR+CA first-line was not superior to SR alone first-line in final recanalisation level, first-pass recanalisation level and 90-day clinical outcomes in the Chinese population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Stroke and Vascular Neurology
Stroke and Vascular Neurology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.70%
发文量
63
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Stroke and Vascular Neurology (SVN) is the official journal of the Chinese Stroke Association. Supported by a team of renowned Editors, and fully Open Access, the journal encourages debate on controversial techniques, issues on health policy and social medicine.
×
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