You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Is aspiration first pass technique a better choice in mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusions?
  1. Zi-yang Sun1,
  2. Xiaoyan Meng2
  1. 1 School of Basic Medical Science, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
  2. 2 Department of Anesthesiology, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Xiaoyan Meng, Department of Anesthesiology, Changhai Road 225, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai, China; xiaoyanmeng{at}aliyun.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016922

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    To the Editor

    We read with great interest the article by Fredrickson et al 1 regarding the outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for large vessel occlusions (LVO) using the aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) or stentriever first aspiration. This retrospective cohort study used a single surgeon series over a 12 month time period to control for procedural confounding variables. The results indicated that ADAPT was associated with a superior outcome compared with the stentriever first technique. However, we wish to raise several comments regarding this study.

    In this study, although the patient characteristics were balanced between the two cohorts, there were still many uncontrolled factors, which reduced the effectiveness of the conclusions and even its reference. For example, the time window for onset to procedure time was not …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Z-YS wrote the manuscript; XM designed the work and revised the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

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

    Linked Articles