Dataset Information

Intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy stent retrievers and aspiration devices in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy combined with appropriate patient selection (image-based selection of acute ischaemic stroke patients with large artery occlusion) yields improved clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, with trial sequential analysis to understand the benefits, risks and impact of new trials reporting in 2016 on the magnitude/certainty of the estimates for clinical effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy.

Method

Random effects' models were conducted of randomised clinical trials comparing mechanical thrombectomy (stent retriever or aspiration devices) with/without adjuvant intravenous thrombolysis with intravenous thrombolysis and other forms of best medical/supportive care in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Study inclusion and risk of bias were assessed independently by two reviewers. Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) and mortality at 90 days, including symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage rate were extracted. Trial sequential analysis established the strength of the evidence derived from the meta-analyses.

Findings

Eight trials of mechanical thrombectomy with a total sample size of 1841 (916 patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy and 925 treated without mechanical thrombectomy) fulfilled review inclusion criteria. The three most recent trials more precisely defined the effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (modified Rankin Scale 0 to 2; OR?=?2.07, 95% CI?=?1.70 to 2.51 based on data from eight trials versus OR?=?2.39, 95% CI?=?1.88 to 3.04 based on data from five trials). Meta-analyses showed no effect on mortality (OR?=?0.81, 95% CI?=?0.61 to 1.07) or symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (OR?=?1.22, 95% CI?=?0.80 to 1.85) as found in analysis of first five trials. Trial sequential analysis indicated that the information size requirement was fulfilled to conclude the evidence for mechanical thrombectomy is robust.

Discussion

The impact of three recent trials on effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy was a more precise pooled effect size for functional independence. Trial sequential analysis demonstrated sufficient evidence for effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy.

Conclusion

No further trials of mechanical thrombectomy versus no mechanical thrombectomy are indicated to establish clinical effectiveness. Uncertainty remains as to whether mechanical thrombectomy reduces mortality or increases risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage.

SUBMITTER: Flynn D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6453187 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost disabling strokes are due to a blockage of a large artery in the brain by a blood clot. Prompt removal of the clot with intra-arterial thrombolytic drugs or mechanical devices, or both, can restore blood flow before major brain damage has occurred, leading to improved recovery. However, these so-called endovascular interventions can cause bleeding in the brain. This is a review of randomised controlled trials of endovascular thrombectomy or intra-arterial thrombolysis, or both, for acute ischaemic stroke.ObjectivesTo assess whether endovascular thrombectomy or intra-arterial interventions, or both, plus medical treatment are superior to medical treatment alone in people with acute ischaemic stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Trials Registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and Cochrane Vascular Group (last searched 1 September 2020), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 1 September 2020), MEDLINE (May 2010 to 1 September 2020), and Embase (May 2010 to 1 September 2020). We also searched trials registers, screened reference lists, and contacted researchers.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any endovascular intervention plus medical treatment compared with medical treatment alone in people with definite ischaemic stroke.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors (MBR and MJ) applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. Two review authors (MBR and HL) assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We obtained both published and unpublished data if available. Our primary outcome was favourable functional outcome at the end of the scheduled follow-up period, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2. Eighteen trials (i.e. all but one included trial) reported their outcome at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were death from all causes at in the acute phase and by the end of follow-up, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in the acute phase and by the end of follow-up, neurological status at the end of follow-up, and degree of recanalisation.Main resultsWe included 19 studies with a total of 3793 participants. The majority of participants had large artery occlusion in the anterior circulation, and were treated within six hours of symptom onset with endovascular thrombectomy. Treatment increased the chance of achieving a good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2: risk ratio (RR) 1.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 1.63; 3715 participants, 18 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). Treatment also reduced the risk of death at end of follow-up: RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 3793 participants, 19 RCTs; high-certainty evidence) without increasing the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in the acute phase: RR 1.46 (95% CI 0.91 to 2.36; 1559 participants, 6 RCTs; high-certainty evidence) or by end of follow-up: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.52; 1752 participants, 10 RCTs; high-certainty evidence); however, the wide confidence intervals preclude any firm conclusion. Neurological recovery to National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score 0 to 1 and degree of recanalisation rates were better in the treatment group: RR 2.03 (95% CI 1.21 to 3.40; 334 participants, 3 RCTs; high-certainty evidence) and RR 3.11 (95% CI 2.18 to 4.42; 268 participants, 3 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), respectively.Authors' conclusionsIn individuals with acute ischaemic stroke due to large artery occlusion in the anterior circulation, endovascular thrombectomy can increase the chance of survival with a good functional outcome without increasing the risk of intracerebral haemorrhage or death.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough stent retriever (SR) is recommended as a frontline device of endovascular treatment (EVT) for embolic large artery occlusion causing acute ischemic stroke, contact aspiration (CA) device showed similar efficacy in the recent trials. However, the efficacy of the both devices as first-line therapy for intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS)-related large vessel occlusion has not yet been established. Therefore, we compared the immediate effects and final outcomes of SR and CA as first-line devices for treating ICAS-related occlusions.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent EVT for acute ischemic stroke from the registry of three Korean hospitals. Patients with ICAS-related occlusion who were treated within 24 h of onset of the symptoms were included. We investigated immediate reperfusion performance, immediate safety outcomes, and 3-month clinical outcomes for the two first-line devices.ResultsOf the 720 registered patients, 111 were eligible for this study. Forty-nine patients (44.1%) used SR and 62 (55.9%) used CA as the first-line device. Achieving successful reperfusion immediately after first-line thrombectomy was more frequent in the SR group than that in the CA group (77.6% vs. 43.5%, p = 0.001), with fewer additional rescue treatments (12.2% vs. 59.7%, p < 0.001). The incidence of iatrogenic dissection or rupture was lower in the SR group than that in the CA group (8.2% vs. 29.0%, p = 0.012). After additional rescue treatments, however, the final successful reperfusion rate did not differ between the two groups (SR 87.8% vs. CA 77.4%, p = 0.247), and there was no significant difference in the 3-month good outcomes (modified Rankin Scale, p = 0.524).ConclusionsFirst-line SR thrombectomy showed higher immediate reperfusion and less vessel injury for ICAS-related occlusions than CA. However, there was no significant difference in the final reperfusion status or 3-month outcomes from additional rescue treatments.

Project description:Importance:The treatment effects of individual mechanical thrombectomy devices in large-vessel acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remain unclear. Objective:To determine whether the novel 3-dimensional (3-D) stent retriever used in conjunction with an aspiration-based mechanical thrombectomy device (Penumbra System; Penumbra) is noninferior to aspiration-based thrombectomy alone in AIS. Design, Setting, and Participants:This randomized, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled patients at 25 North American centers from May 19, 2012, through November 19, 2015, with follow-up for 90 days. Adjudicators of the primary end points were masked to treatment allocation. Patients with large-vessel intracranial occlusion AIS presenting with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of at least 8 within 8 hours of onset underwent 1:1 randomization to 3-D stent retriever with aspiration or aspiration alone. The primary analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population. Interventions:Mechanical thrombectomy using intracranial aspiration with or without the 3-D stent retriever. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary effectiveness end point was the rate of a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) grade of 2 to 3 with a 15% noninferiority margin. Device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 24 hours were the primary safety end points. Results:Of 8082 patients screened, 198 patients were enrolled (111 women [56.1%] and 87 men [43.9%]; mean [SD] age, 66.9 [13.0] years) and randomized, including 98 in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group and 100 in the aspiration alone group; an additional 238 patients were eligible but not enrolled. The median baseline NIHSS score was 18.0 (interquartile range, 14.0-23.0). Eighty-two of 94 patients in the 3-D stent retriever and aspiration group (87.2%) had an mTICI grade of 2 to 3 compared with 79 of 96 in the aspiration alone group (82.3%; difference, 4.9%; 90% CI, -3.6% to 13.5%). None of the other measures were significantly different between the 2 groups. Device-related serious adverse events were reported by 4 of 98 patients in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group (4.1%) vs 5 of 100 patients in the aspiration only group (5.0%); procedure-related serious adverse events, 10 of 98 (10.2%) vs 14 of 100 (14.0%). A 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 was reported by 39 of 86 patients in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group (45.3%) vs 44 of 96 patients in the aspiration only group (45.8%). Conclusions and Relevance:The present study provides class 1 evidence for the noninferiority of the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration vs aspiration alone in AIS. Future trials should evaluate whether these results can be generalized to other stent retrievers. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01584609.