Objective To report our initial experience with the Catch Plus thrombectomy device (CPD) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS).
Materials and methods We retrospectively evaluated the procedural variables as well as the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with acute occlusion of a major intracranial artery in the anterior circulation who were treated with CPD at our center. Baseline characteristics (gender, age, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk factors, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and vessel occlusion sites) of these patients were recorded. Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score, incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic bleeding, and 90 day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were evaluated as indicators of outcome.
Results 38 patients with a mean age of 67.5 years were treated with CPD. Mean time from symptom onset to procedure initiation was 226.7 min. Recanalization (TICI 2b–3) was achieved in 27 patients (71.1%). The median NIHSS score on admission was 20. Rates of symptomatic and asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were 7.9% and 13.2%, respectively. The 90 day clinical follow-up data were available for 37 patients. The 90 day mortality rate was 18.9%, and the 90 day clinically acceptable functional outcome (mRS score ≤2) rate was 43.2% (mRS score 0–3, 54.1%). Very distal thrombectomy involving the cortical arteries was performed on four patients without complications.
Conclusions Our initial experience suggests that mechanical thrombectomy with the CPD improves 90 day outcomes of patients with AIS by facilitating effective recanalization.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The introduction section has been updated to include manufacturer details of the Catch Plus device.
Twitter Follow Ahmet Peker at @drahmetpeker
Contributors AP collected the data and drafted the paper. EMA monitored the data collection and revised the paper. MAT monitored the data collection and revised the paper. AA drafted and revised the paper.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The institutional review board of Hacettepe University approved this retrospective study.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.