Loading…

Frontline contact aspiration thrombectomy using SOFIA catheter for acute ischemic stroke: period-to-period comparison with Penumbra catheter

Background Recent aspiration thrombectomy devices tend to have a more flexible distal tip and larger bore for easy target access and effective reperfusion. Here, this study primarily focused on the efficacy and safety of the SOFIA catheters when it was used as a frontline contact aspiration thrombec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta neurochirurgica 2019-06, Vol.161 (6), p.1197-1204
Main Authors: Kim, Yong-Won, Hwang, Yang-Ha, Kim, Yong-Sun, Kang, Dong-Hun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Recent aspiration thrombectomy devices tend to have a more flexible distal tip and larger bore for easy target access and effective reperfusion. Here, this study primarily focused on the efficacy and safety of the SOFIA catheters when it was used as a frontline contact aspiration thrombectomy (CAT) tool for acute intracranial large vessel occlusion in comparison with the data from a period when the Penumbra catheter was used. Methods The subjects comprised 189 patients who underwent CAT (90 with Penumbra Max family and 99 with SOFIA/SOFIA plus). Patients’ data were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate overall clinical and angiographic outcomes and compared between the devices. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. But, intravenous alteplase was more frequently administered in the Penumbra group (43.3% vs. 29.3%, p  = 0.045), while incidence of ICA occlusion was higher in SOFIA group (18.9% vs. 38.4%, p  = 0.013). The modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b-3 of reperfusion was 94.4% for the Penumbra group and 92.9% for the SOFIA group ( p  = 0.656). The first-pass effect was more frequently achieved in the SOFIA group (20.0% vs. 39.4%, p  = 0.004) and endovascular procedure time was significantly shorter (55.5 min vs. 36 min, p  
ISSN:0001-6268
0942-0940
DOI:10.1007/s00701-019-03914-4