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: RECO Flow Restoration Device Versus Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy Study (REDIRECT): a prospective randomized controlled trial.
    Author: Cao J, Lin H, Lin M, Ke K, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Zheng W, Chen X, Wang W, Zhang M, Xuan J, Peng Y, REDIRECT Trial Investigators.
    Journal: J Neurosurg; 2021 May 01; 134(5):1569-1577. PubMed ID: 32502991.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The RECO flow restoration (FR) device is a new stent retriever designed for rapid flow restoration in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Here, the authors compared the efficacy and safety of the RECO device with the predicate Solitaire FR stent retriever. METHODS: The RECO Flow Restoration Device Versus Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy Study (REDIRECT) was a multicenter, prospective, open randomized controlled trial. Patients with acute LVO at 7 Chinese stroke centers participated in the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as a modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) reperfusion grade ≥ 2 within three passes. The primary safety endpoint comprised any serious adverse device effect, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and any serious adverse event (SAE; defined as cerebral palsy or death) within 24 hours after the procedure. The secondary efficacy endpoints consisted of functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2), procedure duration, and 90-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and August 2016, 67 patients were randomly allocated to the RECO group and 69 patients to the Solitaire FR group. The primary efficacy endpoint (mTICI grade ≥ 2 within three passes) was similar in the two treatment groups (91% vs 87%, respectively, p = 0.5861), and the rate of reperfusion with an mTICI grade 2b/3 was 87% versus 75% (p = 0.1272). There were no serious adverse device effects in any patient. The rates of sICH (1.5% vs 7.2%, p = 0.1027) and SAEs (6.0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.2050) within 24 hours after the procedure were similar in the two treatment groups. There was no significant difference in the rate of functional independence (63% vs 46%, p = 0.0609) or 90-day all-cause mortality (13% vs 23%, p = 0.1848) or in procedure duration (85.39 ± 47.01 vs 89.94 ± 53.34 minutes, p = 0.5986) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The RECO stent retriever is effective and safe as a mechanical thrombectomy device for AIS due to LVO. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01983644 (clinicaltrials.gov).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]