To report our experience in treating one patient with nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and concurrent acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessels occlusion (LVO). A man in his 50 s presented with acute right hemiparesis and aphasia. Brain CT showed a SAH in the left central sulcus; CT-angiography revealed a tandem occlusion of the left internal carotid artery and homolateral middle cerebral artery. He underwent an angiographic procedure with successful recanalization. Follow-up CT demonstrated a striatal-lenticular stroke without SAH progression. While the absolute contraindication to IVT during intracranial bleeding remains unquestionable, the potential injury/benefit from MT is still debatable. Such cases constitute a blind spot in the guidelines where physicians face the dilemma of choosing between an acute endovascular treatment with the risks of hemorrhage progression and a conservative treatment with the associated poor clinical outcome. We decided to treat our patient invasively, considering the young age, also given the absence of prognostic factors that generally predict post-procedural reperfusion injury. We believe that, in similar cases, MT should be considered-despite not free of risks and drawbacks-to avoid the detrimental consequences of untreated AIS from LVO.
Thrombectomy for ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion and concomitant subarachnoid hemorrhage
Zivelonghi, Cecilia;Emiliani, Andrea;Augelli, Raffaele;Micheletti, Nicola;Bonetti, Bruno;
2021-01-01
Abstract
To report our experience in treating one patient with nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and concurrent acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessels occlusion (LVO). A man in his 50 s presented with acute right hemiparesis and aphasia. Brain CT showed a SAH in the left central sulcus; CT-angiography revealed a tandem occlusion of the left internal carotid artery and homolateral middle cerebral artery. He underwent an angiographic procedure with successful recanalization. Follow-up CT demonstrated a striatal-lenticular stroke without SAH progression. While the absolute contraindication to IVT during intracranial bleeding remains unquestionable, the potential injury/benefit from MT is still debatable. Such cases constitute a blind spot in the guidelines where physicians face the dilemma of choosing between an acute endovascular treatment with the risks of hemorrhage progression and a conservative treatment with the associated poor clinical outcome. We decided to treat our patient invasively, considering the young age, also given the absence of prognostic factors that generally predict post-procedural reperfusion injury. We believe that, in similar cases, MT should be considered-despite not free of risks and drawbacks-to avoid the detrimental consequences of untreated AIS from LVO.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.