Background: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) through femoral access is difficult to perform in some patients with acute ischemic stroke due to challenging vasculature. We compared outcomes of EVT... Show moreBackground: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) through femoral access is difficult to perform in some patients with acute ischemic stroke due to challenging vasculature. We compared outcomes of EVT through femoral versus alternative arterial access. Methods: In this observational study, we included patients from the MR CLEAN Registry who underwent EVT for acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation between 2014 and 2019 in the Netherlands. Patients who underwent EVT through alternative and femoral access were matched on propensity scores in a 1:3 ratio. The primary endpoint was favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2) at 90 days. Secondary endpoints were early neurologic recovery, mortality, successful intracranial reperfusion and puncture related complications. Results: Of the 5197 included patients, 17 patients underwent EVT through alternative access and were matched to 48 patients who underwent EVT through femoral access. Alternative access was obtained through the common carotid artery (n = 15/17) and brachial artery (n = 2/17). Favorable functional outcome was less often observed after EVT through alternative than femoral access (18% versus 27%; aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.05–2.74). The rate of successful intracranial reperfusion was higher for alternative than femoral access (88% versus 58%), although mortality (59% versus 31%) and puncture related complications (29% versus 0%) were more common after alternative access. Conclusions: EVT through alternative arterial access is rarely performed in the Netherlands and seems to be associated with worse outcomes than standard femoral access. A next step would be to compare the additional value of EVT through alternative arterial access after failure of femoral access. Show less
Background and Purpose:Thrombectomy with stent retriever and direct aspiration are equally effective in the endovascular treatment of anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke. We report efficacy... Show moreBackground and Purpose:Thrombectomy with stent retriever and direct aspiration are equally effective in the endovascular treatment of anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke. We report efficacy and safety of initial treatment technique per occlusion segment.Methods:For this study, we analyzed data from the MR CLEAN Registry, a prospective, observational study in all centers that perform endovascular therapy in the Netherlands. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to compare clinical and technical results of first line direct aspiration treatment with that of stent retriever thrombectomy stratified for occlusion segment. Primary outcome measure was functional outcome at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included reperfusion grade expressed as the extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score, periprocedural complication risk, time to reperfusion, and mortality.Results:Of the 2282 included patients, 1658 (73%) were initially treated with stent retriever and 624 (27%) with aspiration. Four hundred sixty-two patients had an occlusion of the intracranial part of the carotid artery, 1349 of the proximal middle cerebral artery, and 471 of the distal parts of the middle cerebral artery. There was no difference in functional outcome between aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy (odds ratio, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) in any of the occlusion segments (P value for interaction=0.2). Reperfusion rate was higher in the aspiration group (odds ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1-1.6]) and did not differ between occlusion segments (P value for interaction=0.6). Procedure times were shorter in the aspiration group (minutes 50 versus 65 minutes; P<0.0001). There was no difference in periprocedural complications or mortality.Conclusions:In unselected patients with anterior circulation infarcts, we observed equal functional outcome of aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy in all occlusion segments. When aspiration was the first line treatment modality, reperfusion rates were higher and procedure times shorter in all occlusion segments. Show less
Background and Purpose-The use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) is considered a contra-indication for intravenous thrombolytics as acute treatment of ischemic stroke. However, little is known about the... Show moreBackground and Purpose-The use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) is considered a contra-indication for intravenous thrombolytics as acute treatment of ischemic stroke. However, little is known about the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients on prior OAC. We aim to compare outcomes after endovascular treatment between patients with and without prior use of OAC.Methods-Data of patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by an intracranial anterior circulation occlusion, included in the nationwide, prospective, MR CLEAN Registry between March 2014 and November 2017, were analyzed. Outcomes of interest included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and functional outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale score). Outcomes between groups were compared with (ordinal) logistic regression analyses, adjusted for prognostic factors.Results-Three thousand one hundred sixty-two patients were included in this study, of whom 502 (16%) used OAC. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage between patients with and without prior OACs (5% versus 6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.38-1.06]). Patients on OACs had worse functional outcomes than patients without OACs (common odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47-0.66]). However, this observed difference in functional outcome disappeared after adjustment for prognostic factors (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.74-1.13]).Conclusions-Prior OAC use in patients treated with endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke is not associated with an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage or worse functional outcome compared with no prior OAC use. Therefore, prior OAC use should not be a contra-indication for endovascular treatment. Show less
