Background Stroke after a cardiovascular procedure (CVP) is a devastating complication adversely affecting outcome. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has not been investigated systematically in this population.
Objective To carry out a retrospective study in patients undergoing MT for early stroke after CVP, aiming to further characterize this cohort of patients, and to evaluate the efficacy, safety, procedural characteristics, and outcome of MT.
Methods A single-center stroke registry of patients who received MT was analyzed. Baseline and procedural parameters, mortality, functional outcome, recanalization rates, and complications were evaluated. Propensity score matching was carried out, identifying a control cohort with non-periprocedural large vessel occlusion (LVO).
Results Overall 913 patients were included (mean age 73.0 (±13.0) years, 52.5% female, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 15 (10–19)). Eleven patients with a LVO after a recent (<30 days postoperatively) CVP were identified (n=3 transcatheter aortic valve and n=1 surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR), n=3 coronary bypass grafting (CABG) surgeries, n=2 SAVR+CABG, and n=2 aortic surgeries). After matching, 8 patients in the CVP group were compared with 16 patients in the matched cohort. Comparable rates of reperfusion were achieved. Time from symptom onset to groin puncture (171.5 min (136.3, 178.3) vs 284.0 min (215.0, 490.5); p=0.039), as well as recanalization (195.0 min (146.0, 201.0) vs 419.0 min (274.0, 613.0); p=0.028) was faster in the CVP group. However, this was not reflected by an improved outcome (modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days: 5.5 (3.3, 6.0) vs 5.0 (4.0, 6.0), mortality after 90 days 50.0% vs 37.5%). Complications did not differ between the groups.
Conclusions Use of MT for LVO stroke in patients after a recent CVP is a safe and efficient treatment in comparison with patients with a non-periprocedural LVO undergoing MT.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
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.
Twitter @ben_bay, @Fie0815
Contributors BB and FF conceptualized the study, performed data analyses, wrote the manuscript, and are the guarantors of the study; BB, N.-OG, MR, MSc, and FF performed data preparation. GT, JF, and FF composed the cohort. KZ, JF, and GT supervised the clinical aspects of the study. MSe, FJB, PC, SB, JF, LC, HR, CW, and FF supervised the work. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version.
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 GT reports receiving consulting fees from Acandis, grant support and lecture fees from Bayer; lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, BristolMyersSquibb/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo; and consulting fees and lecture fees from Portola and Stryker. JF research support from the German Ministry of Science and Education (BMBF), German Ministry of Economy and Innovation (BMWi), German Research Foundation (DFG), European Union (EU), Hamburgische Investitions-/Förderbank (IFB), Medtronic, Microvention, Philips, Stryker; consultancy appointments; Acandis, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenovus, Covidien, Evasc Neurovascular, MD Clinicals, Medtronic, Medina, Microvention, Penumbra, Route92, Stryker, Transverse Medical; stock holdings for Tegus; and serves on the editorial board of JNIS.
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.