Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 3(13), p. 255-260, 2020

DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016289

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages (ERIC) versus conventional stent retrievers for thrombectomy: a propensity score-based analysis

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

BackgroundThe Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages (ERIC) is one of the latest devices for thrombectomies. It has several architectural features that are supposed to enhance its ability to remove clots and prevent distal emboli. We aimed to compare ERIC with standard stent retrievers (SRs) using propensity score (PS) matching.MethodsThe clinical and radiological data of all consecutive patients treated with ERIC or standard FDA-approved stent retrievers were collected from a prospective multicenter registry. We compared procedural outcomes (recanalization rates according to the modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) score and procedural complications) and clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 3 months). Matching of the populations with PS was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 1230 patients were included. In both the PS-matched cohort (195 ERIC patients, 630 SR patients) and the inverse probability of treatment weighting PS-adjusted cohort (206 ERIC patients, 1024 SR patients) there was no difference in terms of successful recanalization (modified TICI score ≥2b), good clinical outcome (mRS=0–2 or equal to pre-stroke mRS), or mortality at 3 months. Patients treated with first-line ERIC had a higher rate of complete recanalization (mTICI 3); however, they also required more passes and more frequent rescue therapy than the SR patient group.ConclusionIn a large multicenter registry with PS matching, the ERIC device provided equivalent angiographic and clinical results to conventional SRs.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT03776877.