Approval of the MERCI Clot Retriever

Abstract

HomeStrokeVol. 36, No. 2Approval of the MERCI Clot Retriever Free AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBApproval of the MERCI Clot RetrieverA Critical View Kyra J. Becker, MD and Thomas G. Brott, MD Kyra J. BeckerKyra J. Becker From the University of Washington School of Medicine (K.J.B.), Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Wash; and the Mayo Clinic (T.G.B.), Jacksonville Fla. Search for more papers by this author and Thomas G. BrottThomas G. Brott From the University of Washington School of Medicine (K.J.B.), Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Wash; and the Mayo Clinic (T.G.B.), Jacksonville Fla. Search for more papers by this author Originally published13 Jan 2005https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000153056.25397.ffStroke. 2005;36:400–403Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 13, 2005: Previous Version 1 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates applications for new human drugs, biologics, and complex medical devices. Companies must obtain FDA approval to legally market these products. In August, the FDA gave Concentric Medical clearance to market its Merci Retriever system to “remove blood clots from the brain in patients experiencing an ischemic stroke.” Given that the FDA is charged with “protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of… biological products and medical devices…, ” “advancing public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines … more effective, safer, and more affordable,” and “helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines … to improve their health,”1 the FDA’s decision to approve the Merci Retriever system is of concern. The pathways to approval are reviewed by Felten et al in the accompanying article and are outlined in Figure 1. Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 1. Potential pathways for device approval.The decision to approve the Merci Retriever was based on data from the MERCI (Mechanical Embolus Removal in Cerebral Ischemia) Trial; the approval was granted through the 510(k) process. The Merci Retriever system includes a flexible nickel titanium (nitinol) wire that obtains a helical shape once it is passed through the tip of the guidance catheter. In practice, the catheter/wire is passed distal to the thrombus, the catheter is removed, and the helical configuration assumed by the wire; the clot is then trapped in the helix and withdrawn from the vasculature (Figure 2). The 510(k) clearance means that the Merci Retriever was felt to be substantially equivalent to a predicate device. In this case, the predicate device was the Concentric Retriever, which itself received 510(k) clearance by the FDA in May 2001 for “use in the retrieval of foreign bodies in the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.” The predicate devices to which the Concentric Retriever was considered substantially equivalent were the Target Therapeutics Attracter Endovascular Snare and the Microvena Corporation Amplatz Goose Neck Microsnare; both of these catheters were judged to be substantially equivalent to other predicate devices. Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 2. Merci Retriever (http://www.concentric-medical.com/).The data presented by Concentric Medical to the FDA in support of the Merci Retriever is publicly available on the FDA’s Web site (http://www.fda.gov/). The intent of the MERCI Trial was to broaden the indication for the Concentric Retriever to include the removal of thrombi from the cerebral vasculature in patients with stroke. Because the submission for approval of the Merci Retriever was a 510(k) submission, the advisory panel members, including the authors, were not asked to vote on the approvability of the device, as would be the case with a PMA. The advisory panel meeting was therefore perfunctory, but the discussion clearly revealed a general level of discomfort with the approval of the device. The trial itself was a prospective nonrandomized study that included patients with ischemic stroke that could be treated within 8 hours of symptom onset; the primary hypothesis of the trial was that the retriever could access and revascularize occluded vessels “while minimizing adverse events.” Serious device-related events were considered to be vessel perforation, vascular dissection, and embolization of clot to another vessel segment.The MERCI investigators compared their treated patient population to the placebo arm of the PRolyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism (PROACT II) study to determine the safety and efficacy of mechanical embolectomy. Because only 18% of patients in the placebo arm of PROACT II (n=59) showed evidence of recanalization, the MERCI investigators felt that a recanalization rate of 30% would be indicative of success.2 Similar to PROACT II, MERCI included patients with M1 and M2 occlusions, but MERCI also included patients with occlusions of the supraclinoid internal carotid artery and the vertebral basilar system, making direct comparisons of outcome difficult.In the data presented to the FDA, the intention-to-treat population in the MERCI trial included 121 patients, although 7 patients could not be treated for a variety of reasons. The “per-protocol population” therefore includes 114 patients. A total of 265 devices were used to treat the 114 patients and the recanalization rate of the target vessels was 53.5%. Device-related events included fracture of 7 retrievers with 6 device tips detaching in patients. Serious device-related events occurred in 3.5% of patients; 2 patients experienced stroke in previously uninvolved vascular territories and 2 patients had vascular dissection/perforation (both cases were complicated by hemorrhage). In addition, 4 patients had “procedure-related” complications (related to angiography and deployment of the balloon) for an overall 7% rate of device or procedure related complications.Neurological outcome, which should be the most important outcome in a stroke treatment trial, was a secondary end point in the MERCI study and was again determined by comparing the outcome of treated patients to the placebo arm of PROACT II.2 In MERCI, the overall mortality at 90 days was 39%; among patients in whom embolectomy was unsuccessful, the mortality was ≈61%. In MERCI patients with MCA strokes, cumulative mortality at 90 days was 32%; in the placebo arm of PROACT II it was 27%. Good outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Score ≤2 at 90 days, was achieved in 25% of patients in the MERCI trial, which is similar to the percentage of patients with a good outcome in the placebo arm of PROACT II. Univariate analyses showed that revascularization was associated with improved outcome and decreased mortality, but in the multivariate analysis, revascularization did not remain predictive of either. As alluded to earlier, failure to achieve recanalization prognosticated a very poor outcome, perhaps suggesting that the procedure actually harmed people in whom recanalization could not be established (which was nearly half of the population).While it is true that MERCI patients had more severe strokes (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Scores [NIHSSS]=19) and comprised a more heterogeneous stroke population than the patients in PROACT II, these data certainly provide no reassurance about the safety of mechanical embolectomy, yet alone the efficacy. The risks of treatment with the Concentric clot retriever might not be limited to arterial perforation, dissection, or distal embolization; there could be unidentified risks associated with the required immediate poststroke angiography as well as with endovascular instrumentation and injury to the arterial endothelium. Unfortunately, these questions cannot be addressed with the data presented to the FDA by the MERCI investigators. Randomized trials have a distinct advantage in this setting; they can control for variables we know are likely to relate to procedure success and outcome, and they can control for important variables we have yet to identify.Devices are different from drugs. Accordingly, the FDA convened the Neurological Devices Advisory Panel in November of 2000 to address the issue of clinical trial design for endovascular devices in the treatment of acute stroke and to make recommendations to the FDA. The FDA specifically asked the panel if surrogate end points (ie, recanalization of a cerebral vessel) would be sufficient to determine approvability of a device. The consensus of the panel was that an assessment of clinical outcomes should be required for Phase III clinical trials; the panel was not unified, however, in its view of the need for a contemporaneous control group.3Despite these Advisory Panel suggestions, the FDA did not require Concentric Medical to provide any proof of clinical efficacy for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with stroke. Thus, there is currently no evidence that using the Merci Retriever will improve outcome in patients with ischemic stroke. The FDA approval, however, skirts the issue of “stroke therapy” by approving the Merci Retriever for the “removal of clots,” not for the treatment of stroke. The semantics of this approval, however, will not limit the use of the retriever system in patients with stroke. And given that stroke is common and other indications for use of the Merci Retriever (ie, retrieval of foreign objects from the vasculature) are uncommon, the recent FDA approval will likely prove to be of significant financial benefit to Concentric Medical. It is unclear how much the Retriever System will cost, but since at least 2 devices were used in each patient in the MERCI trial, the potential impact of the FDA’s decision to Concentric Medical is enormous.This editorial is not an indictment of Concentric Medical; in fact, we applaud the efforts of the medical device industry for developing novel therapies for stroke. Concentric Medical cooperated fully with the FDA and did exactly what was asked of them. Since the FDA approval of the Merci Retriever, Concentric Medical has made a number of revisions to the device. Unfortunately, this modified device is now being studied in another nonrandomized trial known as “Multi-MERCI,” which is similar in design to the original MERCI trial; another 510(k) application will be submitted to the FDA for the improved device.In order to be certain that we offer our patients effective and safe endovascular therapies, we should demand that the clinical benefits of the device and the intervention be established. Endovascular devices are not tools to be evaluated for use within an already proven stroke paradigm, because the urgent endovascular approach is not standard of care and has been shown to be successful only in PROACT II. The best evidence for safety and efficacy is provided by prospective randomized controlled trials. For example, the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) recently funded a trial of mechanical embolectomy for the treatment of stroke though the Specialized Program of Translational Research in Acute Stroke (SPOTRIAS). This project is known as MR RESCUE (Magnetic Resonance and REcanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy) and is aimed at determining whether MRI can identify acute stroke patients who may benefit from having their blocked blood vessels reopened by the Merci Retriever. Patients with anterior circulation infarcts who present within 8 hours of stroke onset will be randomized to either mechanical embolectomy or medical therapy; the response to therapy will be stratified by the MR pattern at randomization (“penumbral” versus “nonpenumbral”).The results of the MR Rescue study will provide Level I evidence regarding the benefits of mechanical embolectomy. However, intra-arterial trials such as MR Rescue, PROACT Il, and MERCI are costly, and enrollment has been historically slow. Moreover, the FDA is required by law to consider evidence for safety and efficacy that does not come from randomized studies. What other types of evidence would be pertinent and acceptable? In the case at hand, the MERCI clot retriever, the treatment studied differed from standard of care treatment of stroke beyond 3 hours by requiring angiography, arterial manipulation, and use of a specific device. PROACT II placebo patients, the historical controls for MERCI, also differed from standard of care by requiring angiography and should not have been accepted by the investigators or by the FDA as the only pertinent comparison group; a medical comparison group should have been required. Contemporary randomized medical controls lacking neurological outcome data were available for severe strokes from the NINDS tPA trial for both the tPA- and placebo-treated patients; matching could have been done by baseline NIHSSS. Neurological outcome data may also have been available to the MERCI investigators from other recently completed medical and interventional trials.There are currently a number of different devices being evaluated for the treatment of stroke. These include devices aimed at achieving recanalization with ultrasound (both intravascular and extravascular), lasers, and water pulsation; there are also trials that combine mechanical and thrombolytic approaches to revascularization. In addition, there are devices that induce hypothermia for neuroprotection, devices aimed at improving cerebral blood without recanalizing blood vessels, and devices used to remove blood from the brain and ventricles of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Given the number of these devices in trial and their potential impact on the treatment of stroke, it is imperative that we set higher standards for approval of these devices. Clinical efficacy needs to be demonstrated in prospective randomized controlled trials. The FDA sets very high standards for the approval of drugs, why are the standards so different for devices?FootnotesCorrespondence to Dr Kyra Becker, Box 359775, Harborview Medical Center, 325 9th Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2499. E-mail [email protected]References1 Food and Drug Administration Web site. FDA’s mission statement. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html. Accessed December 20, 2004.Google Scholar2 Furlan A, Higashida R, Wechsler L, Gent M, Rowley H, Kase C, Pessin M, Ahuja A, Callahan F, Clark WM, Silver F, Rivera F. Intra-arterial prourokinase for acute ischemic stroke. The PROACT II study: a randomized controlled trial. PROlyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism. JAMA. 1999; 282: 2003–2011.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Neurological Devices Panel Fifteenth Meeting. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/transcripts/3667t1.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2005.Google Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Gangadhara S, Siddiqui A and Mokin M (2021) Food and Drug Association Approval Process for Devices Used in Endovascular Treatment of Stroke, Neurology, 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012804, 97:20 Supplement 2, (S194-S200), Online publication date: 16-Nov-2021. Saver J, Chapot R, Agid R, Hassan A, Jadhav A, Liebeskind D, Lobotesis K, Meila D, Meyer L, Raphaeli G, Gupta R, Amista’ P, Andsberg G, Cagnazzo F, Isalberti M, Karabegovic S, Kollia K, Mangiafico S, Mis M, Moreno A, Mudersbach P, Nossek E, Pero G, Piasecki P, Raz E, Reis J, Rudnicka S, Sinisalo M, Spinetta M, Stavngaard T, Undren P and Zamaro J (2020) Thrombectomy for Distal, Medium Vessel Occlusions, Stroke, 51:9, (2872-2884), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020. Smith W (2019) Endovascular Stroke Therapy, Neurotherapeutics, 10.1007/s13311-019-00724-5, 16:2, (360-368), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019. Zhu Y, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Wu H, Wei L, Zhou G, Zhang Y, Deng L, Cheng Y, Li M, Santos H and Cui W (2018) Endovascular Metal Devices for the Treatment of Cerebrovascular Diseases, Advanced Materials, 10.1002/adma.201805452, 31:8, (1805452), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. Escobar-Peso A, Chioua M, Frezza V, Martínez-Alonso E, Marco-Contelles J and Alcázar A (2017) Nitrones, Old Fellows for New Therapies in Ischemic Stroke Neuroprotective Therapy for Stroke and Ischemic Disease, 10.1007/978-3-319-45345-3_9, (251-283), . Ayuso M, Martínez-Alonso E, Chioua M, Escobar-Peso A, Gonzalo-Gobernado R, Montaner J, Marco-Contelles J and Alcázar A (2017) Quinolinyl Nitrone RP19 Induces Neuroprotection after Transient Brain Ischemia, ACS Chemical Neuroscience, 10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00126, 8:10, (2202-2213), Online publication date: 18-Oct-2017. Smith W and Furlan A (2015) Brief History of Endovascular Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment, Stroke, 47:2, (e23-e26), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2016. Nael K and Kubal W (2016) Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Acute Stroke, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America, 10.1016/j.mric.2015.11.002, 24:2, (293-304), Online publication date: 1-May-2016. Darsaut T and Raymond J Letter to the Editor: Last call for clipping aneurysms?, Journal of Neurosurgery, 10.3171/2015.7.JNS151648, 124:4, (1130-1133) Fanous A and Siddiqui A (2016) Mechanical thrombectomy: Stent retrievers vs. aspiration catheters, Cor et Vasa, 10.1016/j.crvasa.2016.01.004, 58:2, (e193-e203), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2016. Jahan R and Saver J (2016) Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke Stroke, 10.1016/B978-0-323-29544-4.00065-7, (1058-1070), . Hill M, Goyal M and Demchuk A (2015) Endovascular Stroke Therapy – A New Era, International Journal of Stroke, 10.1111/ijs.12456, 10:3, (278-279), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2015. Meckel S, Taschner C, ElSheikh S, Maurer C and Urbach H (2015) Mechanische Thrombektomie beim ischämischen SchlaganfallMechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, Der Nervenarzt, 10.1007/s00115-015-4270-4, 86:10, (1226-1235), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015. Broderick J, Palesch Y, Demchuk A, Yeatts S, Khatri P, Hill M, Jauch E, Jovin T, Yan B, von Kummer R, Molina C, Goyal M, Mazighi M, Schonewille W, Engelter S, Anderson C, Spilker J, Carrozzella J, Janis L, Foster L and Tomsick T (2014) Evolution of Practice During the Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial and Implications for Ongoing Trials, Stroke, 45:12, (3606-3611), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014. DeVries J (2014) Acute Stroke Intervention Textbook of Cardiovascular Intervention, 10.1007/978-1-4471-4528-8_36, (499-510), . Hassan A, Abd-Allah F, Chaudhry S, Adil M, Rostambeigi N and Qureshi A (2013) A Critical Analysis of Intra-arterial Thrombolytic Doses in Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment, Neurocritical Care, 10.1007/s12028-013-9859-5, 21:1, (119-123), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2014. Ploneda Perilla A and Schneck M (2013) Unanswered Questions in Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke, Neurologic Clinics, 10.1016/j.ncl.2013.03.006, 31:3, (677-704), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013. Degos V and Guidoux C (2013) Gestione degli accidenti vascolari cerebrali in fase acuta, EMC - Anestesia-Rianimazione, 10.1016/S1283-0771(12)63261-7, 18:1, (1-16), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2013. Muschenborn A, Rodriguez J, Hartman J and Maitland D (2013) Neuroendovascular Medical Devices Biomedical Technology and Devices, Second Edition, 10.1201/b15085-27, (529-554), Online publication date: 25-Jun-2013. Dumont T and Hopkins L (2013) Stroke Intervention, Neurosurgery, 10.1227/01.neu.0000430306.40832.a2, 60:Supplement 1, (5-8), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013. Walcott B, Boehm K, Stapleton C, Mehta B, Nahed B and Ogilvy C (2013) Retrievable stent thrombectomy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: Analysis of a revolutionizing treatment technique, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.03.015, 20:10, (1346-1349), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2013. Kelley R and Martin-Schild S (2012) Ischemic Stroke: Emergencies and Management, Neurologic Clinics, 10.1016/j.ncl.2011.09.014, 30:1, (187-210), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2012. Biller J, Love B and Schneck M (2012) Vascular Diseases of the Nervous System Neurology in Clinical Practice, 10.1016/B978-1-4377-0434-1.00062-1, (1003-1053), . Pfefferkorn T, Holtmannspötter M, Patzig M, Brückmann H, Ottomeyer C, Opherk C, Dichgans M and Fesl G (2011) Preceding Intravenous Thrombolysis Facilitates Endovascular Mechanical Recanalization in Large Intracranial Artery Occlusion, International Journal of Stroke, 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00639.x, 7:1, (14-18), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2012. Degos V and Guidoux C (2012) Tratamiento de los accidentes cerebrovasculares en la fase aguda, EMC - Anestesia-Reanimación, 10.1016/S1280-4703(12)63389-1, 38:4, (1-17), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2012. Fiehler J, Söderman M, Turjman F, White P, Bakke S, Mangiafico S, von Kummer R, Muto M, Cognard C and Gralla J (2012) Future trials of endovascular mechanical recanalisation therapy in acute ischemic stroke patients: a position paper endorsed by ESMINT and ESNR, Neuroradiology, 10.1007/s00234-012-1075-z, 54:12, (1293-1301), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012. Degos V and Guidoux C (2012) Prise en charge des accidents vasculaires cérébraux à la phase aiguë, EMC - Anesthésie-Réanimation, 10.1016/S0246-0289(12)57423-2, 9:3, (1-16), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012. Liebeskind D, Sanossian N, Yong W, Starkman S, Tsang M, Moya A, Zheng D, Abolian A, Kim D, Ali L, Shah S, Towfighi A, Ovbiagele B, Kidwell C, Tateshima S, Jahan R, Duckwiler G, Viñuela F, Salamon N, Villablanca J, Vinters H, Marder V and Saver J (2011) CT and MRI Early Vessel Signs Reflect Clot Composition in Acute Stroke, Stroke, 42:5, (1237-1243), Online publication date: 1-May-2011. Ansari S, Rahman M, McConnell D, Waters M, Hoh B and Mocco J (2010) Recanalization therapy for acute ischemic stroke, part 2: mechanical intra-arterial technologies, Neurosurgical Review, 10.1007/s10143-010-0294-1, 34:1, (11-20), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2011. Furlan A, Sharma J and Higashida R (2011) Intraarterial Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke Stroke, 10.1016/B978-1-4160-5478-8.10062-4, (1227-1240), . Menon B and Goyal M (2014) Endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke: where we are, the challenges we face and what the future holds, Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy, 10.1586/erc.11.35, 9:4, (473-484), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2011. WATANABE M, MORI T, IMAI K and IZUMOTO H (2011) Endovascular Interventions for Patients With Serious Symptoms Caused by Embolic Carotid T Occlusion, Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 10.2176/nmc.51.282, 51:4, (282-288), . Pfefferkorn T, Holtmannspötter M, Schmidt C, Bender A, Pfister H, Straube A, Mayer T, Brückmann H, Dichgans M and Fesl G (2010) Drip, Ship, and Retrieve, Stroke, 41:4, (722-726), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010. Tokunaga K, Sugiu K, Yoshino K, Terai Y, Imaoka T, Handa A, Hirotsune N, Kusaka N and Date I (2010) Percutaneous Balloon Angioplasty for Acute Occlusion of Intracranial Arteries, Operative Neurosurgery, 10.1227/01.NEU.0000380954.29925.CE, 67:3, (ons189-ons197), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2010. Fields J, Lindsay K, Liu K, Nesbit G and Lutsep H (2014) Mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy, 10.1586/erc.10.8, 8:4, (581-592), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010. Wang F, Luo Y, Ling F, Wu H, Chen J, Yan F, He Z, Goel G, Ji X and Ding Y (2013) Comparison of neuroprotective effects in ischemic rats with different hypothermia procedures, Neurological Research, 10.1179/016164110X12670144526183, 32:4, (378-383), Online publication date: 1-May-2010. Sharma V, Teoh H, Wong L, Su J, Ong B and Chan B (2010) Recanalization Therapies in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Pharmacological Agents, Devices, and Combinations, Stroke Research and Treatment, 10.4061/2010/672064, 2010, (1-8), . Alexandrov A (2010) Current and future recanalization strategies for acute ischemic stroke, Journal of Internal Medicine, 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02206.x, 267:2, (209-219), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2010. Latchaw R, Alberts M, Lev M, Connors J, Harbaugh R, Higashida R, Hobson R, Kidwell C, Koroshetz W, Mathews V, Villablanca P, Warach S and Walters B (2009) Recommendations for Imaging of Acute Ischemic Stroke, Stroke, 40:11, (3646-3678), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2009.Broderick J (2008) Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke, Stroke, 40:3_suppl_1, (S103-S106), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2009.Saver J, Albers G, Dunn B, Johnston K and Fisher M (2009) Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) Recommendations for Extended Window Acute Stroke Therapy Trials, Stroke, 40:7, (2594-2600), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2009. Bentley J, Figueroa R and Vender J From presentation to follow-up: diagnosis and treatment of cerebral venous thrombosis, Neurosurgical Focus, 10.3171/2009.8.FOCUS09166, 27:5, (E4) Grunwald I, Walter S, Papanagiotou P, Krick C, Hartmann K, Dautermann A, Faßbender K, Haass A, Bolar L, Reith W and Roth C (2009) Revascularization in acute ischaemic stroke using the penumbra system: the first single center experience, European Journal of Neurology, 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02750.x, 16:11, (1210-1216), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2009. Jahan R and Vinuela F (2014) Treatment of acute ischemic stroke: intravenous and endovascular therapies, Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy, 10.1586/erc.09.13, 7:4, (375-387), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2009. Zubkov A, Klassen B, Kallmes D, Flemming K and Rabinstein A (2007) Successful Recovery from Carotid Terminus Occlusion after Mechanical Embolectomy in a Fully Anticoagulated Patient, Neurocritical Care, 10.1007/s12028-007-0082-0, 10:1, (87-90), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2009. O'Hare A, Brennan P and Thornton J (2009) Retrieval of a Migrated Coil Using an X6 MERCI Device, Interventional Neuroradiology, 10.1177/159101990901500116, 15:1, (99-102), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2009. Horiuchi T, Nitta J, Ogiwara T, Sakai K and Hongo K (2013) Outcome predictors of open embolectomy in middle cerebral artery occlusion, Neurological Research, 10.1179/174313209X382494, 31:9, (892-894), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2009. Roth C, Papanagiotou P, Hartmann K and Reith W (2009) Mechanische RekanalisierungMechanical recanalization, Der Radiologe, 10.1007/s00117-008-1774-y, 49:4, (328-334), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2009. (2008) Stroke – imaging and therapy Clinical Neuroradiology, 10.1017/CBO9780511551925.010, (224-266) Liebeskind D (2008) Aortic occlusion for cerebral ischemia: From theory to practice, Current Cardiology Reports, 10.1007/s11886-008-0007-3, 10:1, (31-36), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2008. Mirsen T (2008) Stroke Critical Care Medicine, 10.1016/B978-032304841-5.50066-2, (1341-1357), . Lutsep H (2008) Mechanical endovascular recanalization therapies, Current Opinion in Neurology, 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3282f35564, 21:1, (70-75), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2008. Mandava P, Suarez J and Kent T (2008) Intravenous rt-PA versus endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke, Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 10.1007/s11883-008-0051-x, 10:4, (332-338), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2008. Hachinski V (2007) Why Read, Contribute to, and Promote Stroke?, Stroke, 38:2, (209-211), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2007.Peña C, Li K, Felten R, Ogden N and Melkerson M (2007) An Example of US Food and Drug Administration Device Regulation, Stroke, 38:6, (1988-1992), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2007.Goldstein L (2007) Regulatory Device Approval for Stroke, Stroke, 38:6, (1737-1738), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2007.Mattle H (2007) Intravenous or Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis?, Stroke, 38:7, (2038-2040), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2007.Liebeskind D (2007) Informed Consent in Acute Stroke, Stroke, 38:11, (e129-e130), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2007. Asakura F, Yilmaz H, Abdo G, Sekoranja L, San Millan D, Augsburger L, Sztajzel R, Ruefenacht D, Perren F, Lovblad K and Goto K (2006) Preclinical testing of a new clot-retrieving wire device using polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel vascular models, Neuroradiology, 10.1007/s00234-006-0181-1, 49:3, (243-251), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2007. Thomassen L and Bakke S (2007) Endovascular reperfusion therapy in acute ischaemic stroke, Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2007.00842.x, 115:s187, (22-29), Online publication date: 1-May-2007. Smith W (2007) Technology Insight: recanalization with drugs and devices during acute ischemic stroke, Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, 10.1038/ncpneuro0372, 3:1, (45-53), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. Gandhi C, Johnson D and Patel A (2007) The endovascular management of intracranial vascular disease including the MERCI device, Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.1007/s11936-007-0003-8, 9:2, (99-108), Online publication date: 1-May-2007. Qureshi A, Alkawi A, Hussein H and Divani A (2007) Angiographic Analysis of Intravascular Thrombus Volume in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke, Journal of Endovascular Therapy, 10.1583/1545-1550(2007)14[475:AAOITV]2.0.CO;2, 14:4, (475-482), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007. Almekhlafi M and Hill M (2007) Combined intravenous and intra-arterial approach in acute stroke treatment, Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, 10.1517/14656566.8.12.1837, 8:12, (1837-1849), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007. Gandhi C, Johnson D and Patel A (2007) The endovascular management of intracranial vascular disease including the MERCI device, Current Cardiology Reports, 10.1007/s11886-007-0006-9, 9:1, (25-31), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2007. Qureshi A, Alkawi A, Hussein H and Divani A (2016) Angiographic Analysis of Intravascular Thrombus Volume in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke, Journal of Endovascular Therapy, 10.1177/152660280701400407, 14:4, (475-482), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007. Wechsler L (2006) Does the Merci Retriever Work?, Stroke, 37:5, (1341-1342), Online publication date: 1-May-2006. Bader M and Palmer S (2006) Whatʼs the “Hyper” in Hyperacute Stroke?, AACN Advanced Critical Care, 10.1097/01256961-200604000-00016, 17:2, (194-214), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2006. Willey J, Schumacher H and Meyers P (2006) Future directions for recanalization therapy in acute ischemic stroke, Future Neurology, 10.2217/14796708.1.1.107, 1:1, (107-116), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2006. Johnston S and Hauser S (2006) Neurology and medical devices, Annals of Neurology, 10.1002/ana.21025, 60:4, (11A-12A) Cabot R, Harris N, Shepard J, Ebeling S, Peters C, Thomas S, Schwamm L and Lev M (2006) Case 16-2006, New England Journal of Medicine, 10.1056/NEJMcpc069007, 354:21, (2263-2271), Online publication date: 25-May-2006. Gilman S (2006) Pharmacologic management of ischemic stroke: Relevance to stem cell therapy, Experimental Neurology, 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.03.002, 199:1, (28-36), Online publication date: 1-May-2006. Lutsep H (2014) Thrombolytic and newer mechanical device treatment for acute ischemic stroke, Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 10.1586/14737175.6.7.1099, 6:7, (1099-1105), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2006. Vora N and Wechsler L (2006) Is mechanical embolectomy a safe and efficacious treatment strategy in patients with acute ischemic stroke?, Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.1038/ncpcardio0397, 3:1, (16-17), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2006. Bader M and Palmer S (2006) Whatʼs the “Hyper” in Hyperacute Stroke?, AACN Advanced Critical Care, 10.1097/00044067-200604000-00016, 17:2, (194-214), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2006. Tomsick T (2018) Editorial Comment—Mechanical Embolus Removal, Stroke, 36:7, (1439-1440), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2005. Connolly E, Lavine S, Meyers P, Palistrandt D, Parra A and Mayer S (2005) Intensive Care Unit Management of Interventional Neuroradiology Patients, Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 10.1016/j.nec.2005.04.001, 16:3, (541-545), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2005. Montoya S, Walters E, Mai N and Bhalla T (2017) Endovascular Embolectomy for Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion: A Historical Perspective, American Journal of Interventional Radiology, 10.25259/AJIR-3-2017, 1, (2) Tsivgoulis G, Katsanos A and Alexandrov A (2014) Reperfusion Therapies of Acute Ischemic Stroke: Potentials and Failures, Frontiers in Neurology, 10.3389/fneur.2014.00215, 5 Asadi H, Dowling R, Yan B, Mitchell P and Gómez S (2014) Machine Learning for Outcome Prediction of Acute Ischemic Stroke Post Intra-Arterial Therapy, PLoS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0088225, 9:2, (e88225) February 2005Vol 36, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000153056.25397.ffPMID: 15653576 Manuscript receivedNovember 15, 2004Manuscript acceptedNovember 16, 2004Originally publishedJanuary 13, 2005 Keywordsacute carestroke, ischemicPDF download Advertisement