Open AccessDirect Thrombectomy versus Bridging for Patients with Emergent Large-Vessel Occlusions
Author(s) -
Ronen R. Leker,
José E. Cohen,
David Tanné,
David Orion,
Gregory Telman,
Rebecca Guy,
Jacob Amsalem,
Jonathan Y. Streifler,
Hen Hallevi,
Pavel Gavriliuc,
Natan M. Bornstein,
Anat Horev,
Nour Eddine Yaghmour
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
interventional neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.07
H-Index - 5
eISSN - 1664-9737
pISSN - 1664-5545
DOI - 10.1159/000489575
Subject(s) - medicine , thrombolysis , cardiology , stroke (engine) , atrial fibrillation , modified rankin scale , revascularization , bridging (networking) , heart failure , myocardial infarction , ischemic stroke , ischemia , computer network , computer science , mechanical engineering , engineering
Background and Aims: Patients with emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) that present earlier than 4 h from onset are usually treated with bridging systemic thrombolysis followed by endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Whether direct EVT (dEVT) could improve the chances of favorable outcome remains unknown. Methods: Consecutively, prospectively enrolled patients with ELVO presenting within 4 h of onset were entered into a National Acute Stroke Registry of patients undergoing revascularization. Patients treated with bridging were compared to those treated with dEVT. Excellent outcome was defined as having a modified Rankin Scale score ≤1 at 90 days following stroke. Results: Out of 392 patients that underwent thrombectomy, 270 (68%) presented within 4 h and were included. Of those, 159 (59%) underwent bridging and 111 (41%) underwent dEVT. Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure were more common in the dEVT group (43 vs. 30%, p = 0.04 and 20 vs. 8%, p = 0.009, respectively), but other risk factors, demographics, stroke severity and subtypes as well as baseline vessel patency state and time metrics did not differ. Excellent target vessel recanalization defined as TICI 3 (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score) was more common in the dEVT group (75 vs. 61%, p = 0.03), but in-hospital mortality, discharge destinations, short- and long-term excellent outcome rates did not differ. On multivariate regression analysis, treatment modality did not significantly modify the chances of excellent outcome at discharge (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.3–1.5) or at 3 months (OR 0.78 95% CI 0.4–1.4). Conclusions: The chances of attaining excellent functional outcomes are similar in ELVO patients undergoing dEVT or bridging.