Retrospective review highlights safety of mechanical thrombectomy for ischaemic stroke in CHD children, indicating tailored management is crucial.
Background: CHD is a major risk factor for acute ischaemic stroke in paediatric patients due to endothelial changes from surgically manipulated vessels, prosthetic material, flow stasis in variable circulations, and hypercoagulability from chronic cyanosis. Stroke recognition in critically or chronically ill patients is challenging, yet rapid identification allows for mechanical thrombectomy to restore cerebral blood flow, particularly in those ineligible for thrombolysis or beyond its therapeutic window. We present a case series highlighting the importance of prompt stroke diagnosis and the role of mechanical thrombectomy in paediatric CHD patients, including children as young as four. Methods: We conducted a single-centre retrospective chart review of paediatric CHD patients who experienced thromboembolic stroke and underwent mechanical thrombectomy from July 2018 to March 2024. Data collected included age, stroke territory, maximum Paediatric NIH Stroke Scale (PedNIHSS) score, pre-thrombectomy neurological deficits, and post-thrombectomy outcomes using thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) scores. Results: Four CHD patients underwent mechanical thrombectomy for thromboembolic stroke (Table 1). They exhibited diverse cardiac anatomies, including two-ventricle and single-ventricle physiology, with a wide age range at presentation. Conclusion: Stroke presentation in CHD patients is variable, necessitating a high index of suspicion. Mechanical thrombectomy is safe and effective in patients as young as four, with no haemorrhagic complications in this series. Further research is needed to develop tailored stroke management guidelines for paediatric CHD patients, particularly younger children and those ineligible for thrombolysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adair et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: