Introduction: Endovascular stroke therapy is mostly available in comprehensive stroke centers with state of the art bi-plane angiography suites. The aim of the present study was to analyze if it is justifiable to treat patients with alternative x‑ray machines in the case of capacity constraints, or if it is mandatory to refer patients in such cases. Secondly, we wanted to draw conclusions for the feasibility of different logistic approaches in stroke treatment, such as a "helistroke" concept.
Methods: This was a retrospective dual center analysis of all patients treated on a single-plane angiography suite between 2009 and 2017. A propensity scored matching analysis at a 1:3 ratio was performed with patients treated on a bi-plane angiography suite to receive homogeneous groups.
Results: A total of 42 patients were treated on a single-plane angiography suite and were compared to 126 patients treated on a bi-plane angiography suite. No significant differences in technical parameters, procedure times, recanalization success and complications could be detected. Also, there was no difference in the clinical outcome between the two groups. The only significant difference was the higher amount of radiation dose used on the bi-plane angiography machines to achieve the final results (205,660 mGy × cm2 vs. 114,565 mGy × cm2; p < 0.001).
Discussion: In an era of an ever-changing stroke infrastructure and an increasing demand in thrombectomy procedures, it is feasible and safe for experienced neurointerventionalists to perform endovascular stroke procedures on single-plane angiography units.
Keywords: Angiography suite; Bi-plane; Endovascular treatment; Single-plane; Stroke.