Abstract
Introduction Balloon 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.
Methods Patients 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).
Results In 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).
Conclusion This 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.
Competing Interest Statement
RvdB receives consulting fees from Cerenovus. IRvdW receives consulting fees from Philips (paid to IRvdW) and is stockholder and inventor of a patent owned by Neurophyxia. WHvZ reports speaker fees from Stryker, Cerenovus, and Nicolab, and consulting fees from Philips (all paid to institution); participated in the advisory boards of WeTrust (Philips) and ANAIS (Anaconda) (all paid to institution); and participated in the advisory boards of InEcxtremis (CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France) and DISTAL (University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland), studies for which no payments were received. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
The MR CLEAN Registry (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke) was partly funded by Stichting Toegepast Wetenschappelijk instituut voor Neuromodulatie (TWIN), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, and Amsterdam University Medical Center.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The MR CLEAN Registry study protocol was granted with the permission to carry out the study as a registry after evaluating by the medical ethics committee of the Erasmus University Medical Center (MEC-2014-235). The committee waived the need for obtaining informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Due to legislative issues on patient privacy source data will not be made available. On reasonable request to the corresponding author, detailed statistical analyses will be made available.
