ABSTRACT
Cerebrovascular diseases attributed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are uncommon but can result in devastating outcomes. Pediatric acute ischemic strokes are themselves rare and with very few large vessel occlusion related acute ischemic strokes attributed to COVID-19 described in the literature as of date. COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to acute stroke care delays across the world and with pediatric endovascular therapy still in its infancy, it poses a great challenge in facilitating good outcomes in children presenting with acute ischemic strokes in the setting of COVID-19. We present a pediatric patient who underwent endovascular therapy for an internal carotid artery occlusion related acute ischemic stroke in the setting of active COVID-19 and had an excellent outcome thanks to a streamlined stroke pathway involving the vascular neurology, neuro-interventional, neurocritical care, and anesthesiology teams.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Carotid Artery Thrombosis/therapy , Carotid Artery, Internal , Carotid Stenosis/therapy , Endovascular Procedures , Ischemic Stroke/therapy , Thrombectomy , COVID-19/diagnosis , Carotid Artery Thrombosis/diagnosis , Carotid Artery Thrombosis/etiology , Carotid Artery, Internal/diagnostic imaging , Carotid Stenosis/diagnosis , Carotid Stenosis/etiology , Child , Endovascular Procedures/instrumentation , Humans , Ischemic Stroke/diagnosis , Ischemic Stroke/etiology , Male , Stents , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pipeline embolization device (PED; Medtronic) and stent-assisted coiling (SAC) are established modalities for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. OBJECTIVE: To comparatively assess the efficacy of these techniques. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with aneurysms treated at our institution with either PED from 2013 to 2017 or SAC from 2009 to 2015. All large (>10 mm), ruptured, fusiform, anterior communicating artery, posterior circulation aneurysms, and patients with no available follow-up imaging were eliminated before running the propensity score matching (PSM). Patients were matched using nearest neighbor controlling for: age, gender, smoking, exact location, maximal diameter, and presence of multiple aneurysms. Total hospital costs for equipment and implants were calculated from procedure product and hospital billing records, and compared between the propensity-matched pairs. RESULTS: Out of 165 patients harboring 202 aneurysms; 170 (84.2%) were treated with the PED, and 32 (15.8%) were treated using SAC. PSM resulted in 23 matched pairs; with significantly longer follow up in the SAC group (mean 29.8 vs 14.1 mo; P = .0002). Complete occlusion rates were not different (82.6 vs 87%; P = .68), with no difference between the groups for modified Rankin Scale on last clinical follow-up, procedural complications or retreatment rates. Average total costs calculated from the hospital records, including equipment and implants, were not different between propensity-score matched pairs (P = .48). CONCLUSION: PED placement and SAC offer equally efficacious occlusion rates, functional outcomes, procedural complication rates, and cost profiles for small unruptured anterior circulation saccular aneurysms which do not involve the anterior communicating artery.
Subject(s)
Blood Vessel Prosthesis , Embolization, Therapeutic/instrumentation , Endovascular Procedures/instrumentation , Intracranial Aneurysm/therapy , Stents , Adult , Aged , Embolization, Therapeutic/methods , Endovascular Procedures/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
We present a case describing the use of the AngioVac system (AngioDynamics, Inc.) and SENTINEL™ cerebral protection system (SCPS; Boston Scientific) in a patient with COVID-19 who initially presented with a large deep-vein thrombosis of the left lower extremity, complicated by a pulmonary embolism. Although he initially improved with systemic alteplase, he later developed a second large clot diagnosed in transit in the right atrium. Within 12 hours from initial thrombolysis, this large clot wedged across an incidental patent foramen ovale (PFO), the atrial septum, and the cavotricuspid annulus. We emergently performed a percutaneous clot extraction with preemptive placement of the SCPS in anticipation of cardioembolic phenomenon. A large (> 10 cm) clot was extracted without complication, and the patient was discharged home. The combined use of SCPS and AngioVac in this case suggests a potential role for percutaneous treatment of severe and consequential thromboembolic disease, especially in patients with a PFO, and may be considered as an alternative and less-invasive option in patients with COVID-19. While cerebral embolic protection devices are approved for and widely used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures, there is a theoretical benefit for use in percutaneous thrombolectomies as well.