Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Correspondence on 'Thrombectomy in special populations: report of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery Standards and Guidelines Committee' by Al-Mufti et al
  1. Peter B Sporns1,2,
  2. Marios N Psychogios1,
  3. Jens Fiehler2,
  4. Moritz Wildgruber3
  1. 1Department of Neuroradiology, Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  2. 2Deptartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  3. 3Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, Munchen, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Peter B Sporns, Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; peter.sporns{at}hotmail.de

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We thank Dr Al-Mufti and the SNIS guidelines committee for their important work ‘Thrombectomy in special populations: report of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery Standards and Guidelines Committee1 ’. However, regarding the passage on thrombectomy in pediatric patients we think that the literature on which the recommendations are based should be updated. The authors cite two cases series, one consisting of seven patients2 and one of 23 pediatric patients3 who underwent thrombectomy. In both studies no long-term outcomes are reported and both studies do not report the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure (PSOM), an outcome parameter specific to the pediatric population. Moreover, Al-Mufti et al cite a meta-analysis mainly containing case reports.

On the other hand, the largest available retrospective multicenter cohort study, the Save ChildS Study including 73 patients from 27 stroke centers in Europe and the USA, is missing.4 In this study the rate of successful recanalization was high (modified Treatment in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) ≥2b=87.4%) and the …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @Fie0815

  • Contributors PBS: main author, planning, literature review, writing and revising manuscript. MNP: literature review, draft, revised manuscript. JF: literature review, draft, revised manuscript. MW: literature review, draft, revised 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.

  • 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.

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.