You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 16, Issue 2
  • A propensity score-matched comparative study of balloon guide catheters versus conventional guide catheters for concurrent mechanical thrombectomy with carotid stenting in tandem strokes: comparison of first pass effect, symptomatic intracranial hemorrha…

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Ischemic stroke
Original research
A propensity score-matched comparative study of balloon guide catheters versus conventional guide catheters for concurrent mechanical thrombectomy with carotid stenting in tandem strokes: comparison of first pass effect, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and 90-day functional outcomes
  1. Ammad A Baig1,2,
  2. Muhammad Waqas1,2,
  3. Ryan C Turner1,2,
  4. Cathleen C Kuo3,
  5. Brianna M Donnelly1,2,
  6. Pui Man Rosalind Lai1,2,
  7. Kunal P Raygor1,2,
  8. Mehdi Bouslama1,2,
  9. Jaims Lim1,2,
  10. Jenna Neumaier BS3,
  11. Justin M Cappuzzo1,2,
  12. Jason M Davies1,2,4,5,6,
  13. Kenneth V Snyder1,2,5,6,
  14. Adnan H Siddiqui1,2,5,6,7,
  15. Elad I Levy1,2,5,6,7
  1. 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
  2. 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Gates Vascular Institute at Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA
  3. 3 Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
  4. 4 Department of Bioinformatics, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
  5. 5 Canon Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
  6. 6 Jacobs Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA
  7. 7 Department Radiology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Elad I Levy, University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA; ELevy{at}ubns.com

Abstract

Background Extensive clot burden in tandem strokes accounts for poor mechanical thrombectomy (MT) outcomes. Several studies have shown the benefit of balloon guide catheters (BGCs) in MT and carotid artery stenting.

Objective In view of this potential benefit, to investigate the safety and effectiveness of proximal flow arrest using a BGC during concurrent MT and carotid revascularization for tandem stroke treatment in a comparative, propensity score-matched (PSM) study.

Methods Patients with a tandem stroke identified from our endovascular database were dichotomized into groups treated with BGCs versus conventional guide catheters. One-to-one PSM adjustment for baseline demographics and treatment selection bias using nearest-neighbor matching was performed. Patient demographics, presentation characteristics, and procedural details were recorded. Outcomes assessed were final modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) grade, periprocedural symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rate, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Mann-Whitney U test and multivariate logistic regression were performed to compare procedural parameters and clinical outcomes.

Results Concurrent carotid revascularization (stenting with/without angioplasty) and MT was performed in 125 cases (BGC: 85; no BGC: 40). After PSM (40 patients/group), the BGC group had a significantly shorter procedure duration (77.9 vs 61.5 min; OR=0.996; P=0.006), lower discharge National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (8.0 vs 11.0; OR=0.987; P=0.042), and higher odds of 90-day mRS 0–2 score (52.3% vs 27.5%; OR=0.34; P=0.040). On multivariate regression, the BGC group had a significantly higher first pass effect rate (mTICI 2b or 3)(OR=1.115, 95% CI 1.015 to 1.432; P=0.013) and lower periprocedural sICH rate (OR=0.615, 95% CI 0.406 to 0.932; P=0.025). No difference in in-hospital mortality was observed (OR=1.591, 95% CI 0.976 to 2.593; P=0.067).

Conclusion BGCs used for concurrent MT–carotid revascularization with flow arrest were safe and resulted in superior clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with a tandem stroke.

  • stroke
  • balloon
  • thrombectomy
  • catheter
  • stent

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2023-020114

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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @ammadbaigmd, @kunalraygor, @jaims_lim

    • Presented at Digital poster presentation at the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) Annual Meeting, July 26–29, 2022, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The abstract was subsequently published – Baig A, Neumaier J, Waqas M, Monteiro A, Cappuzzo J, Khawar W, Donnelly B, Levy E, Siddiqui A: E-092 Use of balloon-guide catheters for concomitant mechanical thrombectomy and carotid revascularization with flow-arrest results in significantly lower sICH and better 90-day outcomes in tandem stroke patients. J Neurointerv Surg 2022:14:Suppl 1:A125–6.

    • Contributors Conception and design: AAB, EIL, AHS. Acquisition of the data: AAB, CCK, BMD. Analysis and interpretation of the data: all authors. Drafting the manuscript: AAB. Critically revising the manuscript: all authors. Reviewed submitted version of manuscript: all authors. Guarantor: EIL.

    • 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 JMC: Consulting fees: Cerenovus, J&J Medical Device Companies; Integra Lifesciences, Corp.; MIVI Neuroscience, Inc.; Penumbra, Inc.; Stryker, Corp. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Stryker, Corp.; Penumbra, Inc. JMD: Consulting fees; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events: Medtronic, IRRAS AB; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Medtronic, IRRAS AB. Patents planned, issued, or pending: QAS.ai. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: NIH NIHDS Strokenet. Stock or stock options: Synchron, Cerebrotech, QAS.ai. KVS; Fees: Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc., MicroVention, Medtronic, Stryker Neurovascular. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational event: Canon Medical Systems USA Inc. Stock or stock options: Boston Scientific, Access Closure Inc, Niagara Gorge Medical. EIL: Shareholder/Ownership Interest: NeXtGen Biologics, RAPID Medical, Claret Medical, Cognition Medical, Imperative Care, Rebound Therapeutics, StimMed, Three Rivers Medical; Patent: Bone Scalpel; Honorarium for Training & Lectures: Medtronic, Penumbra, MicroVention, Integra, Consultant: Clarion, GLG Consulting, Guidepoint Global, Imperative Care, Medtronic, StimMed, Misionix, Mosiac; Chief Medical Officer: Haniva Technology; National PI: Medtronic- Steering Committees for SWIFT Prime and SWIFT Direct Trials; Site PI Study: MicroVention (CONFIDENCE Study) Medtronic (STRATIS Study-Sub 1); Advisory Board: Stryker (AIS Clinical Advisory Board), NeXtGen Biologics, MEDX, Cognition Medical; Endostream Medical, IRRAS AB (Consultant/Advisory Board, Medical Legal Review: render medical/legal opinions as an expert witness; leadership or fiduciary roles in other board society, committee or advocacy group, paid and unpaid: CNS, ABNS, UBNS. AHS: Consulting fees: Amnis Therapeutics, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc., Cardinal Health 200, LLC, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Inc., Cerenovus, Cerevatech Medical, Inc., Cordis, Corindus, Inc., Endostream Medical, Ltd, Imperative Care, InspireMD, Ltd., Integra, IRRAS AB, Medtronic, MicroVention, Minnetronix Neuro, Inc., Peijia Medical, Penumbra, Q’Apel Medical, Inc., Rapid Medical, Serenity Medical, Inc., Silk Road Medical, StimMed, LLC, Stryker Neurovascular, Three Rivers Medical, Inc., VasSol, Viz.ai, Inc. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Secretary – Board of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2020-2021, Chair –Cerebrovascular Section of the AANS/CNS 2020-2021. Stock or stock options: Adona Medical, Inc., Amnis Therapeutics, Bend, IT Technologies, Ltd., BlinkTBI, Inc., Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Inc., Cerevatech Medical, Inc., Cognition Medical, CVAID Ltd., E8, Inc., Endostream Medical, Ltd, Galaxy Therapeutics, Inc., Imperative; Care, Inc., InspireMD, Ltd., Instylla, Inc., International Medical Distribution Partners, Launch NY, Inc.; Neurolutions, Inc., NeuroRadial Technologies, Inc., NeuroTechnology Investors, Neurovascular Diagnostics, Inc., Peijia; Medical, PerFlow Medical, Ltd., Q’Apel Medical, Inc., QAS.ai, Inc., Radical Catheter Technologies, Inc., Rebound Therapeutics Corp. (Purchased 2019 by Integra Lifesciences, Corp), Rist Neurovascular, Inc. (Purchased 2020 by Medtronic), Sense Diagnostics, Inc., Serenity Medical, Inc., Silk Road Medical, Sim & Cure, SongBird Therapy, Spinnaker Medical, Inc., StimMed, LLC, Synchron, Inc., Three Rivers Medical, Inc., Truvic Medical, Inc., Tulavi Therapeutics, Inc., Vastrax, LLC, VICIS, Inc., Viseon, Inc. Other financial or non-financial interests: National PI/Steering Committees: Cerenovus EXCELLENT and ARISE II Trial; Medtronic SWIFT PRIME, VANTAGE, EMBOLISE and SWIFT DIRECT Trials; MicroVention FRED Trial & CONFIDENCE Study; MUSC POSITIVE Trial; Penumbra 3D Separator Trial, COMPASS Trial, INVEST Trial, MIVI neuroscience EVAQ Trial; Rapid Medical SUCCESS Trial; InspireMD C-GUARDIANS IDE Pivotal Trial.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.