Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Rescue stenting for acute ischemic stroke with refractory emergent large vessel occlusion in the modern thrombectomy era
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Rescue stenting for acute ischemic stroke with refractory emergent large vessel occlusion in the modern thrombectomy era
Do you wish to request the book?
Rescue stenting for acute ischemic stroke with refractory emergent large vessel occlusion in the modern thrombectomy era
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Rescue stenting for acute ischemic stroke with refractory emergent large vessel occlusion in the modern thrombectomy era
2022
Overview
Rescue stenting is used as a bailout technique during mechanical thrombectomy for stroke. We performed a retrospective study analyzing outcomes of patients that received a stent as a bailout measure and compared results to a control group.
We identified all patients who underwent a mechanical thrombectomy for a large vessel occlusion between January 2010 and October 2019. Subjects with mTICI 0–2 A after at least three passes were defined as failed MT and constituted the control group (NSG-controls). Patients that received a rescue stent (RSG) formed the study group.
Comparative analysis of patient demographics between NSG-controls and SRG was performed. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were not significantly different between both groups. NIHSS at admission and IV t-PA were not significantly different among both groups (16.5 vs. 14.2, p = 0.19) and (39.4% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.30), respectively. There was no significant difference in procedural and post-procedural complications between both the groups. In the RSG, 24 patients (82.4%) achieved favorable revascularization outcomes. NIHSS at discharge (p = 0.01) was higher in the NSG-controls, while favorable functional outcome at three months (12% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.01) was observed at a higher proportion in the RSG. There was also a significant mortality difference, with 15.2% mortality in the RSG compared to 35.1% mortality in the NSG-controls (p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, stenting was an independent predictor of favorable outcome (OR: 10.0, p = 0.009).
Herein, we demonstrated that rescue stenting is a feasible, safe, and effective procedure to improve stroke outcomes and should be seriously considered if the primary mechanical thrombectomy is not successful.
•NIHSS at discharge (p = 0.01) was higher in the NSG, while favorable functional outcome at three months (12% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.01) was observed at a higher proportion in the rescue stenting group.•There was also a significant mortality difference, with 15.2% mortality in the rescue stenting group compared to 35.1% mortality in the NSG (p = 0.03).•Rescue stenting is safe, feasible and effectve and may improve outcomes in failed thrombectomies.
