Article

Endovascular Acute Stroke Treatment Performed by Vascular Interventional Radiologists: Is It Safe and Efficacious?

Department of Radiology, Stavanger University Hospital, 4068, Stavanger, Norway, .
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology (Impact Factor: 1.97). 06/2012; 35(5):1029-35. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-012-0438-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the safety and efficacy of neurointerventional procedures in acute stroke patients performed by a team of vascular interventional radiologists in close cooperation with diagnostic neuroradiologists and stroke neurologists and to compare the results with those of previous reports from centres with specialised interventional neuroradiologists.
A total of 39 patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion not responding to or not eligible for intravenous thrombolysis were treated with either intra-arterial thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy (Penumbra System or solitaire FR thrombectomy system, respectively) and included in our prospective study. Outcomes were measured using the modified Rankin scale after 90 days, and recanalization was assessed by thrombolysis using the myocardial infarction score.
Mean patient age was 68.3 ± 14.2 years; the average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at hospital admission was 17.2 (SD = 6.2 [n = 38]). Successful recanalization was achieved in 74.4 % of patients. Median time from clinical onset to recanalization was 5 h 11 min. Procedure-related complications occurred in 5 % of patients, and 7.5 % had a symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Of the patients, 22.5 % died within the first 90 postprocedural days, 5 % of these from cerebral causes. Patients who were successfully recanalized had a clinical better outcome at follow-up than those in whom treatment failed. Of the patients, 35.9 % had an mRS score ≤2 after 90 days.
Our results are in line with those in the published literature and show that a treatment strategy with general interventional radiologists performing neurointerventional procedures in acute stroke patients with large vessel occlusions can be achieved to the benefit of patients.

0 Followers
 · 
103 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alteplase is the only approved thrombolytic agent for acute ischaemic stroke. The overall benefit from alteplase is substantial, but some evidence indicates that alteplase also has negative effects on the ischaemic brain. Tenecteplase may be more effective and less harmfull than alteplase, but large randomised controlled phase 3 trials are lacking. The Norwegian Tenecteplase Stroke Trial (NOR-TEST) aims to compare efficacy and safety of tenecteplase vs. alteplase.Methods/design: NOR-TEST is a multi-centre PROBE (prospective randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint) trial designed to establish superiority of tenecteplase 0.4 mg/kg (single bolus) as compared with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg (10 % bolus + 90 % infusion/60 minutes) for consecutively admitted patients with acute ischaemic stroke eligible for thrombolytic therapy, i.e. patients a) admitted <41/2 hours after symptoms onset; b) admitted <41/2 hours after awakening with stroke symptoms c) receiving bridging therapy before embolectomy.Randomisation tenecteplase:alteplase is 1:1. The primary study endpoint is favourable functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale 0-1 at 90 days. Secondary study endpoints are: 1) haemorrhagic transformation (haemorrhagic infarct/haematoma); 2) symptomatic cerebral haemorrhage on CT 24-48 hours; 3) major neurological improvement at 24 hours; 4) recanalisation at 24-36 hours; 5) death.
    BMC Neurology 05/2014; 14(1):106. DOI:10.1186/1471-2377-14-106 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Following the development of intravenous thrombolysis as a successful treatment for ischaemic stroke, advances in neurointerventional radiology have facilitated endovascular approaches to treatment. This article reviews the available endovascular therapeutic options and their evidence-base. Summary Initial studies demonstrated that endovascular treatment of ischaemic stroke with intra-arterial thrombolysis and/or the use of clot-retrieval, thrombus aspiration and stent-retriever devices produced early recanalisation and reperfusion and improved neurological outcome. More recent randomised trials, however, have failed to show translation of recanalisation into successful clinical outcome with ‘time to treatment’ proving crucial. In this rapidly evolving field, combined therapy incorporating intravenous and intra-arterial thrombolysis in combination with endovascular clot-retrieval has been developed and further studies are expected to yield better evidence to guide the optimal treatment of acute cerebral ischaemia.
    European Journal of Internal Medicine 09/2014; 25(7). DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2014.06.025 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purposeThe direct bridging concept in acute stroke treatment combines intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular treatment (EVT). The frequency and extent of reperfusion obtained already due to IVT were evaluated. Additionally undesired events and the clinical outcome were analysed.Methods Fifty-seven acute stroke patients treated with direct bridging were analysed for this study. The response to IVT was evaluated according to the modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale (m-TICI). IVT responders (m-TICI ≥2B in digital subtraction angiography) were compared with IVT non-responders (m-TICI <2B in digital subtraction angiography) with respect to clinical outcome and occurrence of undesired events.ResultsFourteen patients (25%) got a change from TICI 0 to ≥2B due to IVT alone. There were otherwise no differences between the IVT responders and IVT non-responders.Conclusions Intravenous thrombolysis pretreatment in the context of the bridging approach contributes substantially to revascularization.
    European Journal of Neurology 09/2014; 22(2). DOI:10.1111/ene.12569 · 3.85 Impact Factor