Article Text

PDF
Case report
Successful endovascular stroke therapy in a 103-year-old woman
  1. SoHyun Boo1,
  2. Uzoma B Duru2,
  3. Matthew S Smith2,
  4. Ansaar T Rai1
  1. 1Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
  2. 2Department of Neurology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr A T Rai, Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26508, USA; ansaar.rai{at}gmail.com

Abstract

People older than 80 years of age constitute the most rapidly growing age group in the world. Several trials confirming superior efficacy of endovascular therapy did not have an upper age limit and showed favorable treatment effects, regardless of age. Current American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines do not restrict treatment based on age as long as other eligibility criteria are met. A 103-year-old woman presented 2 h after stroke onset secondary to a left internal carotid artery terminus (ICA-T) occlusion. Admission National Institutes of Health Stoke Scale (NIHSS) score was 38, with no early ischemic changes on imaging, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale score was 0, and she lived independently with minimal help. After initiation of intravenous thrombolysis, the patient underwent successful mechanical thrombectomy with Thombosis in Cerebral Infaction-3 recanalization. She showed remarkable recovery (NIHSS score of 1 at 48 h). Stroke onset to recanalization was 3 h 40 min. Our objective in documenting the oldest patient to successfully undergo stroke intervention is to corroborate that with the current evidence, appropriate patients undergoing rapid treatment may allow us to advance the limits of endovascular therapy.

  • Stroke
  • Technique
  • Thrombectomy

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Republished with permission from BMJ Case Reports Published 3 November 2015; doi:10.1136/bcr-2015-012012

  • Contributors SHB contributed to the technical aspects of the case report. UBD contributed to the clinical aspects of the case report. MSS contributed to the editing aspects of the case report. ATR contributed to the discussion and editing aspects of the case report.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.