Skip to main content
Log in

Increased Number of Passes and Double Stent Retriever Technique Induces Cumulative Injury on Arterial Wall After Mechanical Thrombectomy in a Swine Model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Translational Stroke Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Author Correction to this article was published on 24 June 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

The number of stentriever passes during endovascular thrombectomy impacts clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke. Previous studies suggest that the simultaneous double stent retriever technique (DSRT) could improve the efficacy and reduce the number of passes. We aim to analyze the degree of vessel wall injury according to the number of passes and technique (single vs. simultaneous devices). Histological changes were evaluated in renal arteries (RAs) of swine models after thrombectomy (1, 2, or 3 passes) with single stent (SSRT) and DSRT. Thrombectomy passes were performed in 12 RA: 3 samples from each artery were studied by optical microscopy to assess a vascular damage score. All thirty-six samples showed endothelial denudation and different degrees of damage in the deepest layers of the arterial wall; however, all arteries remained patent by the time of assessment. In all cases, the degree of vascular injury increased with the number of passes. Compared with a SSRT, DSRT showed a higher severity of histological damage corresponding to the damage caused by 1.4 SSRT passes. However, in distal arteries, vascular damage was relatively similar when comparing SSRT with multiple passes and DSRT with one pass. The degree of vessel injury increases with the number of passes. Even though histological damage per pass was 1.4 higher with DSRT than SSRT, short-term vessel patency was not compromised after up to 3 DSRT passes. Further studies are needed to characterize the risk–benefit ratio of the DSRT in routine clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Ding D. Endovascular mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a new standard of care. J Stroke. 2015;17(2):123–6. https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2015.17.2.123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Derex L, Cho TH. Mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2017;173(3):106–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2016.06.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koge J, Kato S, Hashimoto T, Nakamura Y, Kawajiri M, Yamada T. Vessel wall injury after stent retriever thrombectomy for internal carotid artery occlusion with duplicated middle cerebral artery. World Neurosurg. 2019;123:54–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Teng D, Pannell JS, Rennert RC, Li J, Li YS, Wong VW, et al. Endothelial trauma from mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke: in vitro live-cell platform with animal validation. Stroke. 2015;46:1099–106. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peschillo S, Tomasello A, Diana F, et al. Comparison of subacute vascular damage caused by ADAPT versus stent retriever devices after thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: histological and ultrastructural study in an animal model. Interv Neurol. 2018;7(6):501–12. https://doi.org/10.1159/000491028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gory B, Bresson D, Rouchaud A, Yardin C, Mounayer C. A novel swine model to evaluate arterial vessel injury after mechanical endovascular thrombectomy. Interv Neuroradiol. 2013;19(2):147–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/159101991301900201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Arai D, Ishii A, Chihara H, Ikeda H, Miyamoto S. Histological examination of vascular damage caused by stent retriever thrombectomy devices. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(10):992–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Katz JM, Hakoun AM, Dehdashti AR, Chebl AB, Janardhan V, Janardhan V. Understanding the radial force of stroke thrombectomy devices to minimize vessel wall injury: mechanical bench testing of the radial force generated by a novel braided thrombectomy assist device compared to laser-cut stent retrievers in simulated MCA vessel diameters. Interv Neurol. 2020;8(2–6):206–14. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Xu H, Peng S, Quan T, et al. Tandem stents thrombectomy as a rescue treatment for refractory large vessel occlusions. J Neurointerv Surg. 2021;13(1):33–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. García-Tornel Á, Requena M, Rubiera M, et al. When to stop [published correction appears in Stroke. 2020 Jun;51(6):e118]. Stroke. 2019;50(7):1781–1788. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025088

  11. Klisch J, Sychra V, Strasilla C, Taschner CA, Reinhard M, Urbach H, et al. Double solitaire mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke: effective rescue strategy for refractory artery occlusions? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36:552–6. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4133.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Asadi H, Brennan P, Martin A, Looby S, O’Hare A, Thornton J. Double stent-retriever technique in endovascular treatment of middle cerebral artery saddle embolus. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;25:e9-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.10.005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aydin K, Barburoglu M, OztopCakmak O, Yesilot N, Vanli ENY, Akpek S. Crossing Y-Solitaire thrombectomy as a rescue treatment for refractory acute occlusions of the middle cerebral artery. J Neurointerv Surg. 2019;11(3):246–50. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Li Z, Liu P, Zhang L, et al. Y-stent rescue technique for failed thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion: a case series and pooled analysis. Front Neurol. 2020;11:924. Published 2020 Aug 27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00924

  15. Peschillo S, Diana F, Berge J, Missori P. A comparison of acute vascular damage caused by ADAPT versus a stent retriever device after thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: a histological and ultrastructural study in an animal model. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9(8):743–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012533.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zaidat OO, Castonguay AC, Linfante I, Gupta R, Martin CO, Holloway WE, et al. First pass effect: a new measure for stroke thrombectomy devices. Stroke. 2018;49:660–6. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.020315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. García-Tornel Á, Rubiera M, Requena M, et al. Sudden recanalization: a game-changing factor in endovascular treatment of large vessel occlusion strokes. Stroke. 2020;51(4):1313–6. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.028787.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yin NS, Benavides S, Starkman S, et al. Autopsy findings after intracranial thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a clinicopathologic study of 5 patients. Stroke. 2010;41(5):938–47. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.576793.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Krings T, Mandell DM, Kiehl TR, et al. Intracranial aneurysms: from vessel wall pathology to therapeutic approach. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011;7(10):547–559. Published 2011 Sep 20. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2011.136

  20. Kawashima M, Rhoton AL Jr, Tanriover N, Ulm AJ, Yasuda A, Fujii K. Microsurgical anatomy of cerebral revascularization Part I: anterior circulation. J Neurosurg. 2005;102(1):116–31. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2005.102.1.0116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sakaoka A, Koshimizu M, Nakamura S, Matsumura K. Quantitative angiographic anatomy of the renal arteries and adjacent aorta in the swine for preclinical studies of intravascular catheterization devices. Exp Anim. 2018;67(2):291–9. https://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.17-0125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro Tomasello.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Tomasello reported receiving personal fees from Anaconda Biomed, Balt, Medtronic, Perflow, Merlin, and Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Ribo reported receiving personal fees from Anaconda Biomed, AptaTargets, Cerenovus, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Methinks, Philips, Sanofi, Stryker, and Rapid A.I. outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: the surname of the third author is currently spelled incorrectly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hernández, D., Cuevas, J.L., Gramegna, L.L. et al. Increased Number of Passes and Double Stent Retriever Technique Induces Cumulative Injury on Arterial Wall After Mechanical Thrombectomy in a Swine Model. Transl. Stroke Res. 14, 425–433 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12975-022-01044-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12975-022-01044-1

Keywords

Navigation