Impact of Balloon Guide Catheters in Elderly Patients Treated with Mechanical Thrombectomy: Insights from the ROSSETTI Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several nonrandomized studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of balloon guide catheters in treating patients with anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion. However, their impact on the elderly populations has been underreported. We aimed to analyze the effect of balloon guide catheters in a cohort of elderly patients (80 years of age or older) with anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients from June 2019 to June 2022 were collected from the ROSSETTI Registry. Demographic and clinical data, angiographic endovascular technique, and clinical outcome were compared between balloon guide catheter and non-balloon guide catheter groups. We studied the association between balloon guide catheters and the rate of complete recanalization after a single first-pass effect modified TICI 2c-3, as well as their association with functional independence at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 808 patients were included during this period, 465 (57.5%) of whom were treated with balloon guide catheters. Patients treated with balloon guide catheters were older, had more neurologic severity at admission and lower baseline ASPECTS, and were less likely to receive IV fibrinolytics. No differences were observed in terms of the modified first-pass effect between groups (45.8 versus 39.9%, P = .096). In the multivariable regression analysis, balloon guide catheter use was not independently associated with a modified first-pass effect or the final modified TICI 2c-3, or with functional independence at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, balloon guide catheter use during endovascular treatment of anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion in elderly patients did not predict the first-pass effect, near-complete final recanalization, or functional independence at 3 months. Further studies, including randomized clinical trials, are needed to confirm these results.

Transradial versus transfemoral access for acute stroke endovascular thrombectomy: a 4-year experience in a high-volume center.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes and safety of transradial (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) for endovascular mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 832 consecutive patients with acute stroke undergoing interventional thrombectomy using TRA (n = 64) or TFA (n = 768). RESULTS: Direct TFA failures occurred in 36 patients, 18 of which underwent crossover TFA to TRA, while direct TRA failures occurred in 2 patients having both crossovers to TFA. Successful catheterization was achieved in 96.8% (62/64) and 95.3% (732/768) of patients undergoing direct TRA and direct TFA, respectively, without significant differences. The median (IQR) catheterization time was 10 (8-16) min in the direct TRA group and 15 (10-20) in the direct TFA group (P < 0.001). This difference was also significant in the subgroup of anterior circulation strokes and in patients younger and older than 80 years of age. The majority of procedures yielded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction grade 2b/2c/3 revascularization in patients undergoing direct TRA (88.5%) and direct TFA (90.8%), without statistically significant differences. The median (IQR) puncture to recanalization time was 37 (24-58) min for the direct TRA group and 42 (28-70) min for the direct TFA group. Significant differences in access site complications, symptomatic ICH, and mRS score 0-2 at 90 days between both TRA and TFA accesses were not found. CONCLUSIONS: TRA is not inferior to TFA in the probability of catheterization, times of catheterization and revascularization, and other clinical outcomes for mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke.

Transradial access for diagnostic angiography and interventional neuroradiology procedures: A four-year single-center experience.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of transradial access for diagnostic angiography and interventional neuroradiology procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a single-center experience based on 225 patients attended between August 2015 and October 2019, in which transradial access was used for diagnostic angiography and endovascular interventions. Ultrasound-guided access was done at the level of the forearm or anatomical or snuffbox (distal transradial access). Conventional forearm transradial access was done in 179 procedures (right, left and bilateral in 169, 5 and 5, respectively), while distal transradial access was done in 46 cases (41 right and 5 left). Primary outcome measures included successful catheterization, need to change access, or technical complications. RESULTS: In the group of 131 diagnostic angiographies, the technique success rate was 100% to target the right vertebral artery, 97% for the right internal carotid, 93.5% for the left internal carotid, 82% for the left vertebral artery, and 100% for both common and external carotid arteries. All patients were discharged within 2-4 h after the procedure. A total of 94 interventional procedures were performed, including aneurysms in 39 cases, stroke in 34, and other procedures (carotid stents, arteriovenous malformations, carotid-cavernous fistula) in the remaining 21. The overall technical success in both diagnostic angiographies and interventional procedures was 97.7%. In four cases of diagnostic angiography and in 1 intervention, it was necessary to switch from transradial access to transfemoral access. Three cases of hematoma related to the access site were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, transradial access is an alternative approach for diagnostic angiography and neuro-interventions.