Stent retrievers
Stent retriever | Company | FDA approval | Design/Shape | Study | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Solitaire FR | Medtronic | 2012 | Self-expanding stent cut into a nitinol plate with a honeycomb pattern | SWIFT-PRIME [19]SWIFT-DIRECT [23]REVASCAT [24]EXTEND-IA [25]ESCAPE [26] | Successful revascularization achieved in 91% (thrombectomy alone; up to 96% with alteplase) |
Trevo XP | Stryker | 2012 | Self-expanding stent with a unique distal shaped section for clot retrieval; its platinum marker allows fluoroscopic control of the distal portion | DAWN [27]TREVO 2 [28] | Successful revascularization achieved in 86% |
Merci | UCLA Health | 2004 | Stent formed of nitinol with a characteristic helical shape that traps the clot once deployed. Often combined with BGC to prevent anterograde flow | MERCI [29]SWIFT [22]TREVO 2 [28] | Successful revascularization achieved in 60%; 19% device-related subarachnoid hemorrhage |
EmboTrap | Johnson and Johnson | 2018 | Dual-layer construct to improve clot engagement and distal mesh to reduce emboli | ARISE [30] | Successful revascularization achieved in 80.2%; 67% with functional independence at 90 days |
Versi | NeuroVasc | Stent formed with nitinol that has three articulated stent segments that facilitate opening during retrieval | Sakai et al. [31] | Successful revascularization achieved in 100% (11 patients); 72.7% favorable functional outcomes (mRS 0–2) at 90 days | |
ERIC | MicroVention Terumo | Three to five interlinked cages preventing the clot from shearing off during retraction | ETIS [32] | Successful revascularization achieved in 82%; 40% favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2) | |
Tigertriever | Rapid Medical | Device with handle that allows physician to expand or contract the mesh | Kara et al. [33] | Successful revascularization achieved in 75.4%; 27.9% with favorable clinical outcomes |
mRS: modified Rankin scale; UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles
BO wrote the original draft of the introduction. CPV wrote the original draft of the section on stent retrievers. ME wrote the original draft of the section on aspiration devices. ME wrote the original draft of the clinical considerations section. RH wrote the original draft of the section on short-term outcomes. AF wrote the original first draft of the section on long-term outcomes. As such, these individuals were responsible for data curation. KP and BLW contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study, provided guided supervision, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
© The Author(s) 2022.