No abstract

Care for acute ischaemic stroke is one of the most rapidly evolving fields due to the robust outcomes achieved by mechanical thrombectomy. Large vessel occlusion (LVO) accounts for up to 38% of acute ischaemic stroke and comes with devastating outcomes for patients, families and society in the pre-intervention era. A paradigm shift and a breakthrough brought mechanical thrombectomy back into the spotlight for acute ischaemic stroke; this was because five randomised controlled trials from several countries concluded that mechanical thrombectomy for acute stroke offered overwhelming benefits. This review article will present a comprehensive overview of LVO management, techniques and devices used, and the future of stroke therapy. In addition, we review our institution experience of mechanical thrombectomy for posterior and distal circulation occlusion.on July 13, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.

OBJECTIVEThe objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of CorPath GRX robotic-assisted (RA) transradial (TR) carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with manual TR CAS.METHODSThe authors conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database and identified 13 consecutive patients who underwent TR CAS from June 2019 through February 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups: RA (6 patients) and manual (7 patients).RESULTSAmong 6 patients in the RA group with a mean age of 70.0 ± 7.2 years, technical success was achieved in all 6 (100%) procedures; there were no technical or access-site complications and no catheter exchanges. Transfemoral conversion was required in 1 (16.7%) case due to a tortuous aortic arch. There were no perioperative complications, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality. The mean procedure duration was significantly longer in the RA group (85.0 ± 14.3 minutes [95% CI 69.9–100.0] vs 61.2 ± 17.5 minutes [95% CI 45.0–77.4], p = 0.0231). There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, fluoroscopy time, contrast dose, radiation exposure, catheter exchanges, technical success, transfemoral conversion, technical or access-site complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, other complications, or mortality.CONCLUSIONSThe authors’ results suggest that RA TR CAS is feasible, safe, and effective. Neurovascular-specific engineering and software modifications are needed prior to complete remote control. Remote control has important implications regarding patient access to lifesaving procedures for conditions such as stroke and aneurysm rupture as well as operative precision. Future clinical investigations among larger cohorts are needed to demonstrate reliable performance and patient benefit.

BackgroundThe transradial approach (TRA) reduces mortality, morbidity, access site complications, hospital cost, and length of stay while maximizing patient satisfaction. We aimed to assess the technical success and safety of TRA for elderly patients (aged ≥75 years).MethodsA retrospective chart review and comparative analysis was performed for elderly patients undergoing a diagnostic cerebral angiogram performed via TRA versus transfemoral approach (TFA). Also, a second comparative analysis was performed among the TRA cohort between elderly patients and their younger counterparts.ResultsComparative analysis in the elderly (TRA vs TFA) showed no significant differences for contrast dose per vessel (43.7 vs 34.6 mL, P=0.106), fluoroscopy time per vessel (5.7 vs 5.2 min, P=0.849), procedure duration (59.8 vs 65.2 min, P=0.057), conversion rate (5.8% vs 2.9%, P=0.650), and access site complications (2.3% vs 2.9%, P=1.00). Radiation exposure per vessel (18.9 vs 51.9 Gy cm2, P=0.001) was significantly lower in the elderly TRA group.The second comparison (TRA in elderly vs TRA in the young) showed no significant differences for contrast dose per vessel (43.7 vs 37.8 mL, P=0.185), radiation exposure per vessel (18.9 vs 16.5 Gy cm2, P=0.507), procedure duration (59.8 vs 58.3 min, P=0.788), access site complication (2.3% vs 1.7%, P=0.55), and conversation rate (5.8% vs 1.8%, P=0.092). A trend for prolonged fluoroscopy time per vessel (5.7 vs 4.7 min, P=0.050) was observed in the elderly TRA group.ConclusionsTRA is a technically feasible and safe option for diagnostic neurointerventional procedures in the elderly. Our small elderly cohort was not powered enough to show a significant difference in terms of access site complications between TRA and TFA.

BACKGROUND The radial approach has been gaining more widespread use by neurointerventionalists fueled by data from the cardiology literature showing better safety and overall reduced morbidity. OBJECTIVE To present our institution's experience with the radial approach for neuroendovascular interventions in 614 consecutive patients who underwent a cumulative of 760 procedures. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed and identified neuroendovascular procedures performed via the upper extremity vasculature access site. RESULTS Amongst 760 procedures, 34.2% (260) were therapeutic, and 65.7% (500) were nontherapeutic angiograms. Access sites were 71.5% (544) via a conventional radial artery, 27.8% (211) via a distal radial artery, 0.5% (4) via an ulnar artery, and 0.1% (1) via the brachial artery. Most of the procedures (96.9%) were performed via the right-sided (737), 2.9% (22) via the left-sided, and 0.1% (1) via a bilateral approach. Major access site complications occurred at a rate of 0.9% (7). The rate of transfemoral conversion was 4.7% (36). There was a statistically higher incidence of transfemoral conversion when repeat procedures were performed using the same access site. Also, there was no significant difference between nontherapeutic procedures performed using the right and left radial access, and conventional versus distal radial access. Procedural metrics improved after completion of 14 procedures, indicating a learning curve that should be surpassed by operators to reach optimal outcomes. CONCLUSION Radial artery catheterization is a safe and effective means of carrying out a wide range of neuroendovascular procedures associated with excellent clinical outcomes and an overall low rate of periprocedural complications.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract