Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In 5%–10% of patients with acute ischemic stroke with an intention to treat with mechanical thrombectomy, no reperfusion can be achieved (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score = 0/1). Purpose of this analysis was a systematic assessment of underlying reasons for reperfusion failures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An intention-to-treat single-center cohort (n = 592) was re-evaluated for all patients in whom no reperfusion could be achieved (n = 63). Baseline characteristics of patients were compared between patients with and without reperfusion failures. After qualitative review of all cases with reperfusion failures, a classification system was proposed and relative frequencies were reported. In a second step, occurrence of delayed recanalization at 24 hours after reperfusion failure and dependency on IV-tPA were evaluated.
RESULTS: In 63/592 patients with an intention to perform stent-retriever thrombectomy, no reperfusion was achieved (TICI 0/1, 10.6%, 95% CI, 8.2%–13.1%). Older patients (adjusted OR per yr = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.05) and patients with M2 occlusion (adjusted OR = 3.36; 95% CI, 1.82–6.21) were at higher risk for reperfusion failure. In most cases, no reperfusion was a consequence of technical difficulties (56/63, 88.9%). In one-third of these cases, reperfusion failures were due to the inability to reach the target occlusion (20/63, 31.7%), while “stent-retriever failure” occurred in 39.7% (25/63) of patients. Delayed recanalization was very rare (18.2%), without dependence on IV-tPA pretreatment status.
CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for reperfusion failure in stent-retriever thrombectomy are heterogeneous. The failure to establish intracranial or cervical access is almost as common as stent-retriever failure after establishing intracranial access. Systematic reporting standards of reasons may help to further estimate relative frequencies and thereby guide priorities for technical development and scientific effort.
Footnotes
Urs Fischer and Pasquale Mordasini shared senior authorship.
Disclosures: Johannes Kaesmacher—RELATED: Grant: Young Talent in Clinical Research Grant (Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and Bangerter Foundation). Jan Gralla—RELATED: Consulting Fee or Honorarium: Medtronic, Comments: Global Principal Investigator of the SWIFT Direct Trial, consultant for Medtronic, member of the Clinical Event Committee of the PROMISE Study (Penumbra)*; UNRELATED: Grants/Grants Pending: Swiss National Funds, Comments: grant for stroke outcome prediction in MRI,* Marcel Arnold—RELATED: Grant: Swiss Heart Foundation, Comments: research grant*; Consulting Fee or Honorarium: Covidien, Medtronic, Comments: honoraria for lectures; UNRELATED: Consultancy: Bayer HealthCare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Amgen, Comments: Scientific Advisory Board honoraria; Grants/Grants Pending: Swiss National Science Foundation, Comments: research grants.* Urs Fischer—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Medtronic, Stryker*; Grants/Grants Pending: Medtronic, Comments: research grant.* *Money paid to the institution.
This work was supported by the Swiss Stroke Society, the Bangerter Foundation, and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences through the “Young Talents in Clinical Research” program.
- © 2018 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org