Abstract
Background
Timely restoration of cerebral blood flow using reperfusion therapy is the most effective maneuver for salvaging penumbra. We re-evaluated the previously described PROTECT (PRoximal balloon Occlusion TogEther with direCt Thrombus aspiration during stent retriever thrombectomy) Plus technique at a tertiary comprehensive stroke center.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy with stentrievers between May 2011 and April 2020. Patients were divided between those who underwent PROTECT Plus and those who did not (proximal balloon occlusion with stent retriever only). We compared the groups in terms of reperfusion, groin to reperfusion time, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at discharge.
Results
Within the study period, 167 (71.4%) PROTECT Plus and 67 (28.6%) non-PROTECT patients which met our inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients with successful reperfusion (mTICI >2b) between the techniques (85.0% vs 82.1%; p = 0.58). The PROTECT Plus group had lower rates of mRS ≤2 at discharge (40.1% vs 57.6%; p = 0.016). The rate of sICH was comparable (p = 0.35) between the PROTECT Plus group (7.2%) and the non-PROTECT group (3.0%).
Conclusion
The PROTECT Plus technique using a BGC, a distal reperfusion catheter and stent retriever is feasible for recanalization of large vessel occlusions. Successful recanalization, first-pass recanalization and complication rates are similar between PROTECT Plus and non-PROTECT stent retriever techniques. This study adds to an existing body of literature detailing techniques that use both a stent retriever and a distal reperfusion catheter to maximize recanalization for patients with large vessel occlusions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
