Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Fabrication of Small Caliber Stent-grafts Using Electrospinning and Balloon Expandable Bare Metal Stents
Published on: October 26, 2016
Balloon-mounted versus self-expandable stent in failed neurothrombectomy: a post hoc analysis of the SAINT study
Mahmoud H Mohammaden1,2,3, Pedro N Martins1,2, Hassan Aboul-Nour4
1Department of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Background:
Previous studies have shown that when thrombectomy has failed, rescue intracranial stenting is associated with better clinical outcomes compared with failed reperfusion. However, comparative data regarding stent type are lacking.
Objective:
To compare the procedural and clinical outcomes of balloon-mounted stents (BMS) with those of self-expandable stents (SES).
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database from the Stenting and Angioplasty in NeuroThrombectomy (SAINT) consortium. Patients were included if thrombectomy had failed and they then underwent rescue emergency stenting. Patients treated with SES or BMS were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The primary outcome was the final reperfusion as measured by the modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) Scale. Safety measures included rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, procedural complications, and 90-day mortality.
Results:
A total of 328 patients were included. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were well balanced among both groups. The BMS group (n=127) had higher rates of successful reperfusion (94.5% vs 86.6%, aOR=4.23, 95% CI 1.57 to 11.37, P=0.004) and increased likelihood of higher degree of final reperfusion on the mTICI Scale (acOR=2.06, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.57, P=0.01) than the SES group (n=201). No difference in modified Rankin Scale shift (acOR=0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.79, P=0.95), rates of mRS0-2 (26% vs 36%, aOR=0.93, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.88, P=0.83) and mRS0-3 (43% vs 50%, aOR=0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.66, P=0.77) at 90 days were noted. Safety measures were comparable in both groups.
Conclusion:
The present study demonstrates higher reperfusion rates with BMS than with SES in failed thrombectomy procedures that involved rescue stenting. No differences in hemorrhagic complications or clinical outcomes were noted. Further larger controlled studies are warranted.
