World neurosurgery · 2018
Clinical Usefulness of Waiting after Stent Deployment in Mechanical Thrombectomy: Effect of the Clot Integration.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yi Ho Jun, Lee Dong Hoon, Sung Jae Hoon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pulling a retriever stent after several minutes of waiting time is a popular technique in mechanical thrombectomy with a stent retriever, but little data exist on the actual effects of waiting after stent deployment.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of consecutive 210 patients separated into 2 groups, a waiting after stent deployment group and a nonwaiting group. A comparative analysis was performed in terms of clinical and radiologic outcomes and complications with respect to multiple categories.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. However, compared with the nonwaiting group, the waiting group had a higher rate of one-pass procedures, a lower mean number of stent passages, and a shorter procedure time (P = 0.021, 0.014, and 0.004, respectively). The proportion of patients with successful recanalization was also higher in the waiting group (P = 0.038). In multivariate analysis, waiting after stent deployment was a predictive factor for successful recanalization (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.110-2.090; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Waiting after stent deployment can lead to a more successful recanalization with a smaller number of stent passages and less distal emboli. More randomized controlled trials are needed to support these findings.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of consecutive 210 patients separated into 2 groups, a waiting after stent deployment group and a nonwaiting group. A comparative analysis was performed in terms of clinical and radiologic outcomes and complications with respect to multiple categories.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. However, compared with the nonwaiting group, the waiting group had a higher rate of one-pass procedures, a lower mean number of stent passages, and a shorter procedure time (P = 0.021, 0.014, and 0.004, respectively). The proportion of patients with successful recanalization was also higher in the waiting group (P = 0.038). In multivariate analysis, waiting after stent deployment was a predictive factor for successful recanalization (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.110-2.090; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Waiting after stent deployment can lead to a more successful recanalization with a smaller number of stent passages and less distal emboli. More randomized controlled trials are needed to support these findings.