Back

Balloon guide catheter versus different sizes of non-balloon guide catheter; a MR CLEAN Registry analysis.

Knapen, R. R. M. M.; CONTRAST Consortium, ; Goldhoorn, R.-J.; Hofmeijer, J.; Lycklama A Nijeholt, G. J.; van den Berg, R.; van den Wijngaard, I. R.; van Oostenbrugge, R. J.; van Zwam, W. H.; van der Leij, C.

2023-07-08 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2023.07.07.23292400 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionBalloon guide catheters (BGC) are used to prevent distal emboli during endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke. Although literature reports benefit of BGC, these are not universally used and randomized head-to-head comparisons are lacking. This study compared functional, safety, and technical outcomes between patients treated with different sizes non-BGC and with BGC during EVT in a nationwide prospective multicenter registry. MethodsPatients from the MR CLEAN Registry (2014-2018), who underwent EVT with a 5-7French (Fr) non-BGC, a 8-9Fr non-BGC, or a 8-9Fr BGC were included. Primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, secondary outcomes included procedure time and first-attempt successful reperfusion (eTICI [≥] 2C). Treatment-effect modification and subgroups were analyzed according to first-line thrombectomy technique: stent retriever (SR) or direct aspiration (ASP). ResultsIn total 2808 patients were included, and 1671 (60%) were treated with 8-9Fr BGC. Overall, no significant differences in clinical outcome were seen between non-BGC and BGC groups. The 8-9Fr non-BGC was associated with lower first-attempt successful revascularization rates compared to BGC (aOR:0.76, 95%CI:0.59-0.998), the 5-7 Fr non-BCG was not. Regression analysis showed a significant interaction between BGC use and device type. In the subgroup with SR as first-line technique, 90 day mRS scores were significantly higher in the 8-9Fr non-BGC group compared with BCG (acOR:0.77; 95%CI:0.59-0.996), but not in the 5-7Fr non-BCG. Direct aspiration combined with 5-7Fr non-BGC resulted in higher first-attempt rates compared to BGC (aOR:1.75; 95%CI:1.16-2.63). ConclusionThis large prospective multicenter registry showed no differences in clinical outcome between patients treated with 5-7Fr non-BGC, 8-9Fr non-BGC, and 8-9Fr BGC. Subgroup analyses, however, suggest that BCG outperforms the non-BGC when SR is used as first-line technique.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
42.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.9%
4
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
6
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
7
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
8
JACC: Basic to Translational Science
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
9
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
11
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
12
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
14
Metabolism
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
15
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
16
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
19
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
25
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%