Background Recent studies have validated the use of endovascular thrombectomy in large vessel ischemic stroke provided patients are selected appropriately. However, to our knowledge, there have been no previously reported cases of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with aortic dissection. We report three such cases, two with chronic aortic dissections (including one with a history of Marfan syndrome) and another with an acute type B dissection.
Methods Case studies and review of relevant literature.
Results Three patients with a history of aortic dissection presented with acute onset right middle cerebral artery syndromes, two of whom had chronic aortic dissections that were status-post graft repair, while a third had an acute type B aortic dissection that had been managed with a femoral-to-femoral bypass. None of the three were candidates for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. All three were found to have proximal right M1 occlusions on non-invasive imaging and were taken for endovascular thrombectomy via transfemoral, transradial, and transbrachial approaches, respectively. All three had successful recanalization (with Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b, TICI 3, and TICI 2b flow, respectively) along with clinical improvement, and none had procedure-related complications.
Conclusions These three cases suggest that endovascular thrombectomy is feasible and can be done safely and efficaciously in patients with aortic dissections and those with Marfan syndrome, although the risks and benefits should be considered as part of any decision-making process. Given that endovascular therapy for acute stroke is now in many situations part of standard care, further studies will be necessary to delineate more precise inclusion and exclusion criteria.
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 MER, APJ, and MAJ conceived the study. MER and APJ initiated the study design. AES, MAJ, and AFD helped with implementation.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.