Background First pass recanalization (FPR, defined as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) grade 2c/3 with a single pass of a thrombectomy device) effect has not yet been evaluated in contact aspiration thrombectomy (CAT). We evaluated FPR effect on clinical outcomes and FPR predictors in CAT.
Methods All consecutive patients who underwent frontline CAT for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion with recanalization (mTICI 2b–3) were identified from registries at six stroke centers. The patients were dichotomized into FPR and non-FPR groups. Clinical features and outcomes were compared between the groups. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine whether FPR was independently associated with clinical outcomes and to identify predictors of FPR.
Results Of the 429 patients who underwent frontline CAT, recanalization was successful in 344 patients (80.2%; mean age 68.7±11.0 years; M:F ratio 179:165). The FPR group had a higher rate of good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) than the non-FPR group. Furthermore, the good outcome rate was higher in the FPR group than in patients who achieved mTICI 2c/3 with multiple passes or rescue treatment. FPR (OR 2.587; 95% CI 1.237 to 5.413) remained independently associated with good outcomes, in addition to age, baseline National Institute Health Stroke Scale, and coronary artery disease. The use of a balloon guide catheter (OR 3.071; 95% CI 1.699 to 5.550) was the only predictor of FPR.
Conclusions Patients in the FPR group had better clinical outcomes than the non-FPR group in CAT. FPR was independently associated with a good outcome. The use of a balloon guide catheter was the only predictor of FPR.
- acute stroke
- first pass
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors D-HK and BMK contributed to drafting/revising the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content, study concept or design, analysis or interpretation of data, acquisition of data, and statistical analysis.All authors contributed to analysis or interpretation and acquisition of data.Statistical analyses were conducted by BMK.
Funding This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HC15C1056).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.