|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Introduction: Few reports have compared the commonly used technical approaches of stentriever, suction thrombectomy, and combined technique, particularly with emphasis on thrombus volume, fragmentation, distal embolization, and clinical outcome.Methods: Medical records and radiographic images of patients undergoing endovascular stroke therapy at our institution between 2014 and 2015 were reviewed for the following data points: Patient age, sex, NIH stroke scale (NIHSS) at presentation, number of passes, presence of distal embolization on angiography, TICI score, and Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) at discharge. When available, photographic images of the retrieved thrombus were analyzed for number of fragments and size of the largest fragment. Parameters were compared for the three thrombectomy techniques of suction (ADAPT technique), stentriever, and the combined approach.Results: Of 63 patients receiving endovascular stroke therapy, 47 (75%) underwent mechanical thrombectomy: Stentriever 17 (36%), Suction 18 (38%), and combined 12 (26%). Average age and presenting NIH stroke scales were similar in the groups. A single pass thrombectomy was more common in the suction group (72%) than in the stentriever (29%) and combined groups (8%). There were more thrombus fragments in the stentriever (2.3) and combined groups (3.4) than in the suction group (1.4), correlating to more frequent distal embolization (suction 22%, stentriever 70%, combined 50%). The retrieved thrombus was largest in the suction group (12.9 mm; stentriever 6.6 mm; combined 10.4 mm). Overall outcome at discharge was better in the suction group (61% MRS 0-2) than in the stentriever (35%) and combined groups (17%).Conclusions: In our patient sample suction thrombectomy outperformed the stentriever and combined techniques in the categories of achieved reperfusion grade, single pass, retrieved thrombus size, number of fragments, distal embolization and clinical outcome. While stent retriever and suction thrombetomy were used as primary approaches, the combined technique was commonly utilized as a rescue attempt once the primary approach had failed, constituting a potential limitation of the analysis in this category.