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: Combined balloon guide catheter, aspiration catheter, and stent retriever technique versus balloon guide catheter and stent retriever alone technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Author: Teo YN, Sia CH, Tan BYQ, Mingxue J, Chan B, Sharma VK, Makmur A, Gopinathan A, Yang C, Loh S, Ng S, Ong SJ, Teoh HL, Rathakrishnan R, Andersson T, Arnberg F, Gontu VK, Lee TH, Maus V, Meyer L, Bhogal P, Spooner O, Li TY, Soh RY, Yeo LL.
    Journal: J Neurointerv Surg; 2023 Feb; 15(2):127-132. PubMed ID: 35101960.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The use of a combination of balloon guide catheter (BGC), aspiration catheter, and stent retriever in acute ischemic stroke thrombectomy has not been shown to be better than a stent retriever and BGC alone, but this may be due to a lack of power in these studies. We therefore performed a meta-analysis on this subject. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase/Ovid, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 20, 2021. Our primary outcomes were the rate of successful final reperfusion (Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) 2c-3) and first pass effect (FPE, defined as TICI 2c-3 in a single pass). Secondary outcomes were 3 month functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2), mortality, procedural complications, embolic complications, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH). A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5,4, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. RESULTS: Of 1629 studies identified, five articles with 2091 patients were included. For the primary outcomes, FPE (44.9% vs 45.4%, OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), I2=57%) or final successful reperfusion (64.5% vs 68.6%, OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.81% to 1.20%), I2=85%) was similar between the combination technique and stent retriever only groups. However, the combination technique had significantly less rescue treatment (18.8% vs 26.9%; OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.91), I2=0%). This did not translate into significant differences in secondary outcomes in functional outcomes, mortality, emboli, complications, or SICH. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in successful reperfusion and FPE between the combined techniques and the stent retriever and BGC alone groups. Neither was there any difference in functional outcomes, complications, or mortality.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]