Rescue stenting for acute ischemic stroke with refractory emergent large vessel occlusion in the modern thrombectomy era.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rescue stenting is used as a bailout technique during mechanical thrombectomy for stroke. We performed a retrospective study analyzing outcomes of patients that received a stent as a bailout measure and compared results to a control group. METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent a mechanical thrombectomy for a large vessel occlusion between January 2010 and October 2019. Subjects with mTICI 0-2 A after at least three passes were defined as failed MT and constituted the control group (NSG-controls). Patients that received a rescue stent (RSG) formed the study group. RESULTS: Comparative analysis of patient demographics between NSG-controls and SRG was performed. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were not significantly different between both groups. NIHSS at admission and IV t-PA were not significantly different among both groups (16.5 vs. 14.2, p = 0.19) and (39.4% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.30), respectively. There was no significant difference in procedural and post-procedural complications between both the groups. In the RSG, 24 patients (82.4%) achieved favorable revascularization outcomes. NIHSS at discharge (p = 0.01) was higher in the NSG-controls, while favorable functional outcome at three months (12% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.01) was observed at a higher proportion in the RSG. There was also a significant mortality difference, with 15.2% mortality in the RSG compared to 35.1% mortality in the NSG-controls (p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, stenting was an independent predictor of favorable outcome (OR: 10.0, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Herein, we demonstrated that rescue stenting is a feasible, safe, and effective procedure to improve stroke outcomes and should be seriously considered if the primary mechanical thrombectomy is not successful.

Lessons Learned After 760 Neurointerventions via the Upper Extremity Vasculature: Pearls and Pitfalls.

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.

Feasibility and initial experience of left radial approach for diagnostic neuroangiography.

Neuroangiography has seen a recent shift from transfemoral to transradial access. In transradial neuroangiography, the right dominant hand is the main access used. However, the left side may be used specifically for left posterior circulation pathologies and when right access cannot be used. This study describes our initial experience with left radial access for diagnostic neuroangiography and assesses the feasibility and safety of this technique. We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of consecutive patients between April 2018 and January 2020, and identified 20 patients whom a left radial access was used for neurovascular procedures. Left transradial neuroangiography was successful in all 20 patients and provided the sought diagnostic information; no patient required conversion to right radial or femoral access. Pathology consisted of anterior circulation aneurysms in 17 patients (85%), brain tumor in 1 patient (5%), and intracranial atherosclerosis disease involving the middle cerebral artery in 2 patients (10%). The left radial artery was accessed at the anatomic snuffbox in 18 patients (90%) and the wrist in 2 patients (10%). A single vessel was accessed in 7 (35%), two vessels in 8 (40%), three vessels in 4 (20%), and four vessels in 1 (5%). Catheterization was successful in 71% of the cases for the right internal carotid artery and in only 7.7% for the left internal carotid artery. There were no instances of radial artery spasm, radial artery occlusion, or procedural complications. Our initial experience found the left transradial access to be a potentially feasible approach for diagnostic neuroangiography even beyond the left vertebral artery. The approach is strongly favored by patients but has significant limitations compared with the right-sided approach.

Endovascular Management of Complex Fenestration-Associated Aneurysms: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study and Review of Existing Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysms associated with fenestrations of intracranial arteries are exceptionally rare findings. Management strategies for these aneurysms are not well-defined, especially regarding endovascular treatment. We sought to investigate the strategies and feasibility of endovascular treatment approaches for various fenestration-associated intracranial aneurysms. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 2000 aneurysms treated endovascularly, identifying 8 aneurysms located at arterial fenestrations. The technical details and procedural outcomes were reviewed to identify common management approaches, technical nuances, and treatment outcomes. RESULTS: There were 3 (37.5%) aneurysms associated with fenestrations of the basilar artery or vertebrobasilar junction. All 3 were successfully treated with a previously undescribed coil-assisted flow-diversion technique, resulting in complete obliteration. Three (37.5%) aneurysms were associated with fenestrations of the anterior communicating artery. Of those, 2 were successfully treated with stent-assisted coil embolization and 1 with coil embolization alone. One (12.5%) aneurysm was associated with a fenestration of the paraclinoid internal carotid artery and 1 (12.5%) aneurysm found was at the takeoff of the posterior inferior cerebellar artery at a fenestration of the vertebral artery. Both were successfully treated with coil-assisted flow diversion. There were no permanent procedural complications. Major considerations for endovascular management of these aneurysms were the dominance of fenestration trunks, aneurysms arising from the fenestration apex or a fenestration limb, amenability to flow diversion, and anticipation of vascular remodeling. CONCLUSIONS: Fenestration-associated aneurysms are very rare. We have identified common factors to help guide decision-making for endovascular approaches and demonstrate successful aneurysm treatment using these methods.