These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Stent-retriever assisted vacuum-locked extraction (SAVE) versus a direct aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) for acute stroke: data from the real-world.
    Author: Brehm A, Maus V, Tsogkas I, Colla R, Hesse AC, Gera RG, Psychogios MN.
    Journal: BMC Neurol; 2019 Apr 15; 19(1):65. PubMed ID: 30987600.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Embolectomy is the standard of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Aim of this study was to compare two techniques: A Direct Aspiration First Pass Technique (ADAPT) and Stent-retriever Assisted Vacuum-locked Extraction (SAVE) stratified by the occluded vessel. METHODS: One hundred seventy-one patients (71 male) treated between January 2014 and September 2017 with AIS due to LVO of the anterior circulation (55 carotid T, 94 M1, 22 M2) were included. Treatment techniques were divided into two categories: ADAPT and SAVE. Primary endpoints were successful reperfusion (mTICI ≥2b), near-perfect reperfusion (mTICI ≥2c) and groin puncture to reperfusion time. Secondary endpoints were the number of device-passes, first-pass reperfusion, the frequency of emboli to new territory (ENT), clinical outcome at 90 days, and the frequency of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Analysis was performed on an intention to treat basis. RESULTS: Overall, SAVE resulted in significant higher rates of successful reperfusion (mTICI≥2b) compared to ADAPT (93.5% vs 75.0%; p = 0.006). After stratification for the occluded vessel only the carotid T remained significant with higher rates of near-perfect reperfusion (mTICI≥2c) (55.2% vs 15.4%; p = 0.025), while for successful reperfusion a trend remained (93.1% vs 65.4%; p = 0.10). Groin to reperfusion times were not significantly different. Secondary analysis revealed higher rates of first-pass successful reperfusion (59.6% vs 33.3%; p = 0.019), higher rates of first-pass near-perfect reperfusion in the carotid T (35.4% vs 16.7%; p = 0.038) and a lower number of device-passes overall (median 1 IQR 1-2 vs 2 IQR 2-3; p <  0.001) and in the carotid T (median 2 IQR 1.3 vs 3 IQR 2-5; p <  0.001) for SAVE. Clinical outcome and safety parameters were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Embolectomy using SAVE appears superior to ADAPT, especially for carotid T occlusions with regard to reperfusion success.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]