You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Efficacy and safety of CatchView Mini stent retriever for mechanical thrombectomy in proximal and distal medium vessel occlusions

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Ischemic stroke
Original research
Efficacy and safety of CatchView Mini stent retriever for mechanical thrombectomy in proximal and distal medium vessel occlusions
  1. Eva González1,
  2. Ion Labayen1,
  3. Jon Fondevila1,
  4. Xabier Manso1,
  5. Alexander Jon Aguinaga1,
  6. Marimar Freijo2,
  7. Alain Luna2,
  8. Covadonga Fernández2,
  9. Tomás Pérez2,
  10. Alejandra Gómez2,
  11. Iratxe Ugarriza2,
  12. Marc Comas-Cufí3,
  13. Jordi Blasco4,
  14. Josep Puig5
  1. 1Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Radiology, Hospital de Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain
  2. 2Department of Neurology, Hospital de Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain
  3. 3Department of Computer Science, Applied Mathematics and Statistics, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
  4. 4Neurointerventional Department CDI, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  5. 5Radiology Department CDI and IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Josep Puig; jpuigmd{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Medium vessel occlusion (MVO) mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has shown promising outcomes and safety profiles, comparable to those of large vessel occlusion thrombectomy.

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of the CatchView Mini (CVM) stent retriever (Balt, Montmorency, France) in patients with acute stroke with proximal and distal MVO (pMVO vs dMVO), respectively.

Methods We analyzed retrospective data of consecutive patients with MVO who underwent MT with the CVM stent retriever. We categorized occlusions into pMVO group (segments A1, M2, and P1) versus dMVO group (segments A2, A3, M3, P2, and P3). Demographic, clinical, angiographic, and clinical outcome data (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score at 24 hours and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months) were compared. The first pass effect (FPE) was defined as that which achieved modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2c–3 after a single device pass.

Results A total of 196 patients were included (44.3% female, median (IQR) age 74 (67–84) years), of whom 151 (77%) had pMVO and 45 (23%) dMVO. FPE was achieved in 108 (55.1%) patients, and final successful reperfusion (mTICI 2c–3) was attained in 156 (79.6%) cases, with up to two passes in 78% of patients. Rescue MT was performed in 24 (12.2%) patients. The dMVO group had a higher FPE rate (84.4% vs 46.3%; P<0.001), fewer number of passes, and lower symptomatic hemorrhage rate (0% vs 0.6%; P=0.009) than the pMVO group. Around 75% of patients in both groups achieved similar favorable outcomes (mRS score 0–2) at 3 months.

Conclusions The CVM device appears effective and safe for pMVO and dMVO thrombectomy.

  • Stroke
  • Device
  • Thrombectomy

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-023018

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EG, JP conceived the original idea; EG, IL, JF, XM, AJA, MF, AL, CF, TP, AG, IU contributed to the design and implementation of the research; MC-C, JB, JP. contributed to the analysis of the results; EG, JP contribute to the writing of the manuscript. All authors discussed the results, contributed to the final manuscript, and approved the final version to be published. They agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the manuscript are appropriately investigated and resolved. Guarantor: EG.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.