Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33167756›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2021

A short history of thrombectomy - Procedure and success analysis of different endovascular stroke treatment techniques.

B Friedrich, T Boeckh-Behrens, V Krüssmann, S Mönch, J Kirschke, K Kreiser, M Berndt, M Lehm, S Wunderlich, C Zimmer and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

B FriedrichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
T Boeckh-BehrensDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
V KrüssmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
S MönchDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
J KirschkeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7557-0003
K KreiserDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
M BerndtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
M LehmDepartment of Radiology, München Klinik, Munich, Germany.
S WunderlichDepartment of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
C ZimmerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
J KaesmacherUniversity Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
C MaegerleinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4885-7671

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe historical development of interventional stroke treatment shows a wide variation of different techniques and materials used. Thus, the question of the present work is whether the technical and procedural differences of thrombectomy techniques lead to different technical and clinical results. METHODS AND

resultsAnalysis of a mixed retrospective/prospective database of all endovascular treated patients with an occlusion of the Carotid-T or M1 segment of the MCA at a single comprehensive stroke center since 2008. Patients were classified regarding the technical approach used. Six hundred sixty-eight patients were available for the final analysis. Reperfusion rates ranged between 56% and 100% depending on the technical approach. The use of balloon guide catheters and most recently the establishment of combination techniques using balloon guide catheters, aspiration catheters and stent retrievers have shown a further significant increase in the rates of successful recanalization, full recanalization and first-pass recanalization. Additionally, the technical development of interventional techniques has led to a subsequent drop in complications, embolization into previously unaffected territories in particular.

conclusionTechnical success of MT has improved substantially over the past decade owing to improved materials and procedural innovations. Combination techniques including flow modulation have emerged to be the most effective approach and should be considered as a standard of care.

Indexed as

Endovascular ProceduresStrokeHumansRetrospective StudiesStentsThrombectomyTreatment Outcomehistorical developmentIschemic strokemechanical thrombectomythrombectomy techniques

Identifiers

PMID33167756
PMCPMC8044626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.