中国卒中杂志2026，Vol.21Issue(4)：463-470,8.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2026.04.009
不同取栓装置在急性缺血性卒中治疗中的有效性与安全性:1项回顾性比较研究
Efficacy and Safety of Different Thrombectomy Devices in the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke:A Retrospective Comparative Study
摘要
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of the domestic Captor® thrombectomy device with the imported SolitaireTM thrombectomy device in mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke(AIS). Methods This was a single-center retrospective study that consecutively enrolled patients with AIS who underwent mechanical thrombectomy at the First Hospital of Qinhuangdao between March 2024 and November 2025.Patients were classified into the Captor® or SolitaireTM group according to the thrombectomy device used.The primary efficacy endpoints were the first-pass recanalization[modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction(mTICI)grade 2b/3]and the final recanalization.Secondary efficacy endpoints included the number of thrombectomy passes,NIHSS scores at 24 hours post-procedure and at discharge,the degree of NIHSS improvement(admission score minus the discharge score),90-day favorable prognosis(mRS score 0-2),and procedure time.Safety outcomes included 24-hour postoperative hemorrhagic events,perioperative vascular complications,90-day all-cause mortality,and 90-day stroke recurrence. Results A total of 181 patients with AIS were enrolled in this study,including 159 in the Captor® group and 22 in the SolitaireTM group.Baseline demographic characteristics and major clinical data were comparable between the two groups,except for the prevalence of hypertension,which was significantly lower in the Captor® group(P=0.047).No significant differences were observed in the first-pass recanalization rate[99.4％(157/158)vs.100％(18/18),P=0.998]or the final successful recanalization rate[98.1％(156/159)vs.95.5％(21/22),P=0.407].The Captor® group required fewer thrombectomy passes than the SolitaireTM group[(1.03±0.24)times vs.(1.23±0.61)times,P=0.004].There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the 24-hour postoperative NIHSS score[11.0(6.5-16.0)vs.11.0(9.0-18.5),P=0.510],NIHSS score at discharge[6.0(3.0-17.0)vs.6.5(4.0-15.2),P=0.930],the degree of NIHSS improvement[4.0(-0.2-9.0)vs.6.5(0.5-15.0),P=0.213],90-day favorable prognosis rate[30.6％(37/121)vs.47.4％(9/19),P=0.129],or procedure time[90(72-110)minutes vs.105(53-115)minutes,P=0.678].The incidence of 24-hour postoperative hemorrhagic events was 0.8％(1/132)in the Captor® group and 0(0/19)in the SolitaireTM group,with no significant difference between the two groups(P=0.349).No perioperative vascular complications occurred in either group(P=0.957).Likewise,90-day all-cause mortality[26.4％(32/121)vs.21.1％(4/19),P=0.277]was similar between the groups.No 90-day stroke recurrence events were observed in either group(P=0.277). Conclusions The domestic Captor® thrombectomy device demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety that may be comparable to the SolitaireTM thrombectomy device in the treatment of AIS.Further prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.关键词
急性缺血性卒中/机械取栓/Captor®/SolitaireTM/血管再通/安全性Key words
Acute ischemic stroke/Mechanical thrombectomy/Captor®/SolitaireTM/Recanalization/Safety分类
医药卫生引用本文复制引用
刘元昊,吴磊,杨欢,朱佳颖,李亚哲..不同取栓装置在急性缺血性卒中治疗中的有效性与安全性:1项回顾性比较研究[J].中国卒中杂志,2026,21(4):463-470,8.基金项目
基金名称2026年度河北省卫生健康委医学科学研究课题计划项目(20261124) （20261124）
