Stent-retriever alone vs. aspiration and stent-retriever combination in large vessel occlusion stroke: A matched analysis

 Sine they don't report objective results I can only assume they are both complete failures at getting to 100% recovery. THIS is why we need survivors in charge, we wouldn't allow research to be published without mentioning the results of the only goal in stroke: 100% recovery.

Survivors don't give a shit about reperfusion, it's only an intermediate step to recovery. What are the rest of the protocols to get to 100% recovery?

Stent-retriever alone vs. aspiration and stent-retriever combination in large vessel occlusion stroke: A matched analysis

Show all authors

Mahmoud H Mohammaden, Diogo C Haussen, Leonardo Pisani, ...

First Published May 27, 2021 Research Article Find in PubMed 

https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930211019204

Article information

Abstract

Background

Three randomized clinical trials have reported similar safety and efficacy for contact aspiration and stent-retriever thrombectomy.

Aim

We aimed to determine whether the combined technique (stent-retriever + contact aspiration) was superior to stent-retriever alone as first-line thrombectomy strategy in a patient cohort where balloon guide catheter was universally used.

Methods

A prospectively maintained mechanical thrombectomy database from January 2018 to December 2019 was reviewed. Patients were included if they had anterior circulation proximal occlusion ischemic stroke (intracranial ICA or MCA-M1/M2 segments) and underwent stent-retriever alone thrombectomy or stent-retriever + contact aspiration as first-line therapy. The primary outcome was the first-pass effect (mTICI2c-3). Secondary outcomes included modified first-pass effect (mTICI2b-3), successful reperfusion (mTICI2b-3) prior to and after any rescue strategy, and 90-day functional independence (mRS ≤ 2). Safety outcomes included rate of parenchymal hematoma type-2 and 90-day mortality. Sensitivity analyses were performed after dividing the overall cohort according to first-line modality into two matched groups.

Results

A total of 420 patients were included in the analysis (mean age 64.4 years; median baseline NIHSS 16 (11–21)). As compared to first-line stent-retriever alone, first-line stent-retriever + contact aspiration resulted in similar rates of first-pass effect (53% vs. 51%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.122, 95%CI (0.745–1.691), p = 0.58), modified first-pass effect (63% vs. 60.4%, aOR1.250, 95%CI (0.782–2.00), p = 0.35), final successful reperfusion (97.6% vs. 98%, p = 0.75), and higher chances of successful reperfusion prior to any rescue strategy (81.8% vs. 72.5%, aOR 2.033, 95%CI (1.209–3.419), p = 0.007). Functional outcome and safety measures were comparable between both groups. Likewise, the matched analysis (148 patient-pairs) demonstrated comparable results for all clinical and angiographic outcomes except for significantly higher rates of successful reperfusion prior to any rescue strategies with the first-line stent-retriever + contact aspiration treatment (81.8% vs. 73.6%, aOR 1.881, 95%CI (1.039–3.405), p = 0.037).

Conclusions

Our findings reinforce the findings of ASTER-2 trial in that the first-line thrombectomy with a combined technique did not result in increased rates of first-pass reperfusion or better clinical outcomes. However, the addition of contact aspiration after initial stent-retriever failure might be beneficial in achieving earlier reperfusion.

Keywords Stroke, outcome, reperfusion, technique, stent-retriever, contact aspiration

Access Options