RESUMO
BACKGROUND: For stent-retriever (SR) thrombectomy, technical developments such as the Push and Fluff technique (PFT) appear to have a significant impact on procedural success. This study aimed to (1) quantify the enhancement in clot traction when using PFT as compared to the standard unsheathing technique (SUT) and (2) to evaluate the performance of PFT in new versus established users of the technique. METHODS: Operators were divided between established PFT and SUT users. Each experiment was labeled according to the SR size, utilized technique, and operator experience. A three-dimensional-printed chamber with a clot simulant was used. After each retriever deployment, the SR wire was connected to a force gauge. Tension was applied by pulling the gauge until clot disengagement. The maximal force was recorded. RESULTS: A total of 167 experiments were performed. The median overall force to disengage the clot was 1.11 pounds for PFT and 0.70 pounds for SUT (an overall 59.1% increment with PFT; p < 0.001). The PFT effect was consistent across different retriever sizes (69% enhancement with the 3 × 32mm device, 52% with the 4 × 28mm, 65% with the 4 × 41mm, 47% with the 6 × 37mm). The ratio of tension required for clot disengagement with PFT versus SUT was comparable between physicians who were PFT versus SUT operators (1.595 [0.844] vs. 1.448 [1.021]; p: 0.424). The PFT/SUT traction ratio remained consistent from passes 1 to 4 of each technique in SUT users. CONCLUSION: PFT led to reproduceable improvement in clot engagement with an average â¼60% increase in clot traction in this model and was found not to have a significant learning curve.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The effect of anesthesia choice on endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) outcomes is unclear. Collateral status on perfusion imaging may help identify the optimal anesthesia choice. METHODS: In a pooled patient-level analysis of EXTEND-IA, EXTEND-IA TNK, EXTEND-IA TNK part II, and SELECT, EVT functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score distribution) were compared between general anesthesia (GA) vs non-GA in a propensity-matched sample. Furthermore, we evaluated the association of collateral flow on perfusion imaging, assessed by hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) - Tmax > 10 seconds/Tmax > 6 seconds (good collaterals - HIR < 0.4, poor collaterals - HIR ≥ 0.4) on the association between anesthesia type and EVT outcomes. RESULTS: Of 725 treated with EVT, 299 (41%) received GA and 426 (59%) non-GA. The baseline characteristics differed in presentation National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (median [interquartile range] GA: 18 [13-22], non-GA: 16 [11-20], p < 0.001) and ischemic core volume (GA: 15.0 mL [3.2-38.0] vs non-GA: 9.0 mL [0.0-31.0], p < 0.001). In addition, GA was associated with longer last known well to arterial access (203 minutes [157-267] vs 186 minutes [138-252], p = 0.002), but similar procedural time (35.5 minutes [23-59] vs 34 minutes [22-54], p = 0.51). Of 182 matched pairs using propensity scores, baseline characteristics were similar. In the propensity score-matched pairs, GA was independently associated with worse functional outcomes (adjusted common odds ratio [adj. cOR]: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.93, p = 0.021) and higher neurologic worsening (GA: 14.9% vs non-GA: 8.9%, aOR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.02-4.33, p = 0.045). Patients with poor collaterals had worse functional outcomes with GA (adj. cOR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29-0.76, p = 0.002), whereas no difference was observed in those with good collaterals (adj. cOR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.50-1.74, p = 0.82), p interaction: 0.07. No difference was observed in infarct growth overall and in patients with good collaterals, whereas patients with poor collaterals demonstrated larger infarct growth with GA with a significant interaction between collaterals and anesthesia type on infarct growth rate (p interaction: 0.020). DISCUSSION: GA was associated with worse functional outcomes after EVT, particularly in patients with poor collaterals in a propensity score-matched analysis from a pooled patient-level cohort from 3 randomized trials and 1 prospective cohort study. The confounding by indication may persist despite the doubly robust nature of the analysis. These findings have implications for randomized trials of GA vs non-GA and may be of utility for clinicians when making anesthesia type choice. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that use of GA is associated with worse functional outcome in patients undergoing EVT. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: EXTEND-IA: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01492725); EXTEND-IA TNK: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02388061); EXTEND-IA TNK part II: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03340493); and SELECT: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02446587).