Angiographic demonstration of a cutoff sign as an unfavorable prognostic indicator for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy

• Published in: Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases Vol. 33; no. 5; p. 107672
• Main Authors: Zhang, Wei, Liu, Tongtong, Shen, Dayong, Li, Qingyun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2024
• Subjects: Acute ischemic stroke; Angiographic appearance; Cutoff sign; Mechanical thrombectomy; Angiographic appearance; Cutoff sign; Acute ischemic stroke; Mechanical thrombectomy
• ISSN: 1052-3057; 1532-8511
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.107672

The aim was to investigate whether the angiographic demonstration of a cutoff sign on the initial angiogram could predict recanalization and prognosis in acute ischemic stroke patients treated by endovascular thrombectomy. The angiographic and clinical data of patients who underwent endovascular treatment from October 2018 to April 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The pretreatment angiographic appearance of the thrombus's proximal part was assessed and classified as either the cutoff sign (+) or (-). Patients’ baseline characteristics and angiographic and clinical outcomes between the two groups were analyzed using propensity score matching. Then, the two commonly used techniques, stent retrieval and contact aspiration, were compared in terms of successful reperfusion and clinical outcome in patients with the cutoff sign. The cutoff sign was observed in 77 (36.2%) of 213 patients. Patients with the cutoff sign were younger and were less likely to have involvement of the anterior circulation. Compared with the cutoff sign (-) group, the cutoff sign (+) group had a significantly longer procedure time (103 versus 80 min, P =0.002) and a lower percentage of 3-month good functional outcomes (18.2% versus 36%, P =0.006). After propensity score matching, the procedure time (100 versus 75 min, P =0.002) and the 3-month good outcome (19.2% versus 41.4%, P =0.004) remained significantly different. No significant differences were observed in the radiological (OR 0.758, 95% CI 0.157 to 3.658; P =0.730) and clinical (OR 0.747, 95% CI 0.147 to 3.787; P =0.725) outcomes between the two techniques. The cutoff sign might be an unfavorable prognostic indicator in patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, and the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy techniques does not differ in patients positive for the cutoff sign.