Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The semiotics of distal thrombectomy: towards a TICI score for the target vessel
  1. Alejandro M Spiotta1,
  2. David Fiorella2,
  3. Adam S Arthur3,
  4. Donald Frei4,
  5. Aquilla S Turk1,
  6. Joshua A Hirsch5
  1. 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  2. 2 Cerebrovascular Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA
  3. 3 Department of Neurosurgery, Semmes-Murphey Clinic, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
  4. 4 Radiology Imaging Associates, Swedish Medical Center, Englewood, Colorado, USA
  5. 5 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alejandro M Spiotta, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston SC 29425, USA; spiotta{at}

Statistics from

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.

The Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) grading system was first described by Higashida in 20031 and later modified.2 More recently a 2C grade (near complete, >90%) has been adopted widely (table 1).3 However, this grading system is based on the assumption that the emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) involves the M1 segment (or carotid terminus) and loses relevance when this is not the case. Consider a superior division M2 occlusion, for example. Assuming codominant M2 divisions, from the onset of the procedure the TICI grade would be a 2B: an endpoint indicating successful recanalization in the historical literature. If partial M2 recanalization was achieved it may still be graded as a 2B at the conclusion, rendering it impossible to decipher if progress had been made. An alternative approach would be to grade the M2 occlusion a ‘target vessel TICI’ 0. In this manner, at the procedure conclusion, whether it remained a 0 or if it were recanalized …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors should receive authorship credit based on the material contribution to this article, their revision of this article, and their final approval of this article for submission to this journal.

  • Competing interests AMS: Penumbra Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau; Pulsar Vascular Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau; Microvention Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau, Research; Stryker Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau. AST: Codman Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau, Research Funding; Covidien Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau; Penumbra Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau, Research Grants; Microvention Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau, Research Grants; Blockade – Stock, Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau; Pulsar Vascular Stock, Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau, Research; Medtronic Consulting, Honorarium, Speaker Bureau. Minnetronix consulting Penumbra consulting Cerenovus consulting. ASA: Consultant for Johnson and Johnson, Leica, Medtronic, Microvention, Penumbra, Scientia, Siemens, Stryker; Research support from Microvention, Penumbra and Siemens; Shareholder Bendit, Cerebrotech, Endostream, Magneto, Neurogami, Serenity, Synchron and Triad Medical. D Fiorella: Medtronic (Consultant, Proctoring), Cerenovous (Royalties, Consulting), Microvention (Consulting, Research Support), Vascular Simulations (Board Member, Stockholder), Penumbra (Research Support), Siemens (Research Support), Neurogami (Stockholder). D Frei: Medical Advisory Board/Consultant/Speakers Bureau Ceranovus, Genentech, Penumbra, Shape Memory Medical, Stryker; Research support Ceranovus, Medtronic, Microvention, Penumbra, Siemens, Stryker; Stock ownership Penumbra.

  • Patient consent Not required.

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

  • Data sharing statement N/A.