Endovascular Treatment is never enough you blithering idiots. You are
letting millions of neurons continue to die and become damaged in the
first week because you are
DOING NOTHING to stop the neuronal cascade of death by these 5 causes. You all need to be keel hauled for not knowing that and DOING NOTHING!
Originally published25 Sep 2018Stroke. 2018;49:2699–2705
Abstract
Background and Purpose—
Endovascular
treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerosis–related large vessel
occlusion (ICAS [+]-LVO) is one of the challenging issues in modern
mechanical thrombectomy era. We evaluated procedural and clinical
outcomes of endovascular treatment for the ICAS (+)-LVO. We also
compared their outcomes with those of large vessel occlusion not
associated with intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS [−]-LVO).
Methods—
We
retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with acute stroke who
underwent endovascular treatment for LVO. Patients were assigned to the
ICAS (+)-LVO group or the ICAS (−)-LVO group primarily based on catheter
angiogram. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between the
ICAS (+)-LVO and ICAS (−)-LVO groups.
Results—
The
present study included 318 patients. Fifty-six patients (17.6%) had an
ICAS (+)-LVO. Recanalization was achieved in 45 patients in the ICAS
(+)-LVO group (80.4%), which was comparable with the ICAS (−)-LVO group
(88.5%; P=0.097). However, recanalization using a stent retriever
was less successful in the ICAS (+)-LVO (28.9%) than the ICAS (−)-LVO
group (93.5%). Of the remaining patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO group,
84.3% of patients required specific rescue treatments appropriate for
ICAS, including balloon angioplasty, stenting, and intra-arterial
glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion. The rates of favorable
outcomes (46.4% versus 46.9%), death, and symptomatic intracranial
hemorrhage were not significantly different between the 2 groups.
Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use was not significantly associated
with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.
Conclusions—
ICAS
(+)-LVO was often refractory to mechanical thrombectomy. With specific
rescue treatments appropriate for ICAS, patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO
group had a recanalization rate comparable with patients in the ICAS
(−)-LVO. With comparable recanalization rate, the clinical outcomes did
not differ between patients with ICAS (+)-LVO and ICAS (−)-LVO. (You fucking idiots, the outcome to be measured is 100% recovery, NOT recanalization.) Oops, I'm not being nice.
Footnotes
No comments:
Post a Comment