World neurosurgery · 2021
Comparison of Balloon Guide Catheters and Standard Guide Catheters for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Pederson John M, Reierson Natalie L, Hardy Nicole, Touchette Jillienne C, Medam Sammy, Barrett Averi, Schmidt Megan, Brinjikji Waleed, Kallmes David F, Kallmes Kevin M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Balloon guide catheters (BGCs) are designed to induce flow arrest during mechanical thrombectomy procedures for acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion and have been associated with improved clinical and angiographic outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the relative technical and clinical outcomes associated with BGC versus non-BGC approaches.
METHODS: A systematic review of clinical literature using the PubMed database was undertaken to identify multiarm studies published between 2010 and 2021 reporting the use of BGC versus non-BGC approaches for stroke treatment. Data collected included complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction, TICI), first-pass effect TICI 3, puncture-to recanalization time, number of endovascular attempts, distal embolization, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0-2, and 90-day mortality. Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of treatment device (stent-retrievers, contact aspiration, combination therapy, and not specified/other). A random effects model was fit for each outcome measure.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. Compared with non-BGC approaches, patients treated with BGCs had greater odds of TICI 3 (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.08-2.29) and first-pass effect TICI 3 (OR 3.63; 95% CI 2.34-5.62), reduced puncture-to-revascularization time (mean difference -7.8; 95% CI -13.3 to -2.2), fewer endovascular attempts (mean difference -0.47; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.26), reduced odds of distal emboli (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.17-0.71) and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51-0.86), greater odds of 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.27-1.79), and reduced odds of mortality (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.82).
CONCLUSIONS: BGCs yield superior technical and clinical outcomes while reducing patient complications.
METHODS: A systematic review of clinical literature using the PubMed database was undertaken to identify multiarm studies published between 2010 and 2021 reporting the use of BGC versus non-BGC approaches for stroke treatment. Data collected included complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction, TICI), first-pass effect TICI 3, puncture-to recanalization time, number of endovascular attempts, distal embolization, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0-2, and 90-day mortality. Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of treatment device (stent-retrievers, contact aspiration, combination therapy, and not specified/other). A random effects model was fit for each outcome measure.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. Compared with non-BGC approaches, patients treated with BGCs had greater odds of TICI 3 (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.08-2.29) and first-pass effect TICI 3 (OR 3.63; 95% CI 2.34-5.62), reduced puncture-to-revascularization time (mean difference -7.8; 95% CI -13.3 to -2.2), fewer endovascular attempts (mean difference -0.47; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.26), reduced odds of distal emboli (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.17-0.71) and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51-0.86), greater odds of 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.27-1.79), and reduced odds of mortality (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.82).
CONCLUSIONS: BGCs yield superior technical and clinical outcomes while reducing patient complications.