高级检索
当前位置: 首页 > 详情页

Rescue stenting after failure of endovascular thrombectomy for acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion: data from the PERSIST registry

文献详情

资源类型:
Pubmed体系:
机构: [1]Stroke Center & Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China [2]Department of Neurology, Zhongshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China [3]Department of Cerebrovascular Disease Treatment Center, Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China [4]Department of Neurology, The First Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, Hunan, China [5]Department of Neurology, The First People’s Hospital of Jingmen, Jingmen, Hubei, China
出处:
ISSN:

摘要:
Among acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (VBAO) patients, successful reperfusion is a strong predictor of favorable outcomes. However, failed reperfusion (FR) with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in VBAO was observed to occur in 18-50% of cases. We aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rescue stenting (RS) for VBAO after failed EVT.Patients with VBAO who received EVT were enrolled retrospectively. Propensity score matching was performed as the primary analysis to compare the outcomes between patients with RS and FR. Furthermore, a comparison between using the self-expanding stent (SES) and balloon-mounted stent (BMS) in the RS group was also conducted. The primary and secondary outcomes were defined as a 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-3, and a 90-day mRS score 0-2, respectively. Safety outcomes included all-cause mortality at 90 days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH).The RS group showed a significantly higher rate of 90-day mRS score 0-3 (46.6% vs 20.7%; adjusted OR (aOR) 5.06, 95% CI 1.88 to 13.59, P=0.001) and a lower rate of 90-day mortality (34.5% vs 55.2%; aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.90, P=0.026) than the FR group. The rates of 90-day mRS score 0-2 and sICH were not significantly different between the RS group and FR group. There were no differences in all outcomes between SES and BMS groups.RS appeared to be a safe and effective rescue approach in patients with VBAO who failed EVT, and there was no difference between using SES and BMS.© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

基金:
语种:
PubmedID:
中科院(CAS)分区:
出版当年[2022]版:
大类 | 1 区 医学
小类 | 1 区 神经成像 1 区 外科
最新[2025]版:
大类 | 2 区 医学
小类 | 1 区 神经成像 1 区 外科
第一作者:
第一作者机构: [1]Stroke Center & Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China
共同第一作者:
通讯作者:
通讯机构: [1]Stroke Center & Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China [5]Department of Neurology, The First People’s Hospital of Jingmen, Jingmen, Hubei, China [*1]Stroke Center & Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230052, China [*2]Department of Neurology, The first people’s Hospital of Jingmen, Jingmen, Hubei, China
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
APA:
MLA:

资源点击量:2018 今日访问量:0 总访问量:645 更新日期:2024-07-01 建议使用谷歌、火狐浏览器 常见问题

版权所有©2020 广东省中医院 技术支持:重庆聚合科技有限公司 地址:广州市越秀区大德路111号