English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

OBJECTIVE Mechanical thrombectomy is standard of care for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. However, limited data are available from assessment of outcomes of FDA-approved devices. The objective of this study is to compare clinical outcomes, efficacy, and safety of non-stent retriever and stent retriever thrombectomy devices. METHODS Between January 2008 and June 2014, 166 patients treated at Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience for acute ischemic stroke with mechanical thrombectomy using Merci, Penumbra, Solitaire, or Trevo devices were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcomes included 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, recanalization rate (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction [TICI score]), and incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression determined predictors of mRS Score 3-6, mortality, and TICI Score 3. RESULTS A total of 99 patients were treated with non-stent retriever devices (Merci and Penumbra) and 67 with stent retrievers (Solitaire and Trevo). Stent retrievers yielded lower 90-day NIH Stroke Scale scores and higher rates of 90-day mRS scores ≤ 2 (22.54% [non-stent retriever] vs 61.67% [stent retriever]; p &lt; 0.001), TICI Score 2b-3 recanalization rates (79.80% [non-stent retriever] vs 97.01% [stent retriever]; p &lt; 0.001), percentage of parenchyma salvaged, and discharge rates to home/rehabilitation. The overall incidence of ICH was also significantly lower (40.40% [non-stent retriever] vs 13.43% [stent retriever]; p = 0.002), with a trend toward lower 90-day mortality. Use of non-stent retriever devices was an independent predictor of mRS Scores 3-6 (p = 0.002), while use of stent retrievers was an independent predictor of TICI Score 3 (p &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Stent retriever mechanical thrombectomy devices achieve higher recanalization rates than non-stent retriever devices in acute ischemic stroke with improved clinical and radiographic outcomes and safety.

Comparison of non–stent retriever and stent retriever mechanical thrombectomy devices for the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke