Search

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with isolated M2 occlusion and minor symptoms and identify possible baseline predictors of clinical outcome.MethodsThe databases of 16 high-volume stroke centers were retrospectively screened for consecutive patients with isolated M2 occlusion and a baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≤5 who received either early MT (eMT) or best medical management (BMM) with the possibility of rescue MT (rMT) on early neurological worsening. Because our patients were not randomized, we used propensity score matching (PSM) to estimate the treatment effect of eMT compared with the BMM/rMT. The primary clinical outcome measure was a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0–1.Results388 patients were initially selected and, after PSM, 100 pairs of patients receiving eMT or BMM/rMT were available for analysis. We found no significant differences in clinical outcome and in safety measures between patients receiving eMT or BMM/rMT. Similar results were also observed after comparison between eMT and rMT. Concerning baseline predicting factors of outcome, the involvement of the M2 inferior branch was associated with a favorable outcome.ConclusionOur multicenter retrospective analysis has shown no benefit of eMT in minor stroke patients with isolated M2 occlusion over a more conservative therapeutic approach. Although our results must be viewed with caution, in these patients it appears reasonable to consider BMM as the first option and rMT in the presence of early neurological deterioration.

BackgroundPatients with minor stroke and M2 occlusion undergoing best medical management (BMM) may face early neurological deterioration (END) that can lead to poor long-term outcome. In case of END, rescue mechanical thrombectomy (rMT) seems beneficial. Our study aimed to define factors relevant to clinical outcome in patients undergoing BMM with the possibility of rMT on END, and find predictors of END.MethodsPatients with M2 occlusion and a baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score≤5 that received either BMM only or rMT on END after BMM were extracted from the databases of 16 comprehensive stroke centers. Clinical outcome measures were a 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–1 or 0–2, and occurrence of END.ResultsAmong 10 169 consecutive patients with large vessel occlusion admitted between 2016 and 2021, 208 patients were available for analysis. END was reported in 87 patients that were therefore all subjected to rMT. In a logistic regression model, END (OR 3.386, 95% CI 1.428 to 8.032), baseline NIHSS score (OR 1.362, 95% CI 1.004 to 1.848) and a pre-event mRS score=1 (OR 3.226, 95% CI 1.229 to 8.465) were associated with unfavorable outcome. In patients with END, successful rMT was associated with favorable outcome (OR 4.549, 95% CI 1.098 to 18.851). Among baseline clinical and neuroradiological features, presence of atrial fibrillation was a predictor of END (OR 3.547, 95% CI 1.014 to 12.406).ConclusionPatients with minor stroke due to M2 occlusion and atrial fibrillation should be closely monitored for possible worsening during BMM and, in this case, promptly considered for rMT.

BackgroundReducing intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) can improve patient outcome in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) intervention. We sought to identify ICH risk factors after AIS thrombectomy.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of the Stroke Thrombectomy and Aneurysm Registry (STAR) database. All patients who underwent AIS thrombectomy with available ICH data were included. Multivariable regression models were developed to identify predictors of ICH after thrombectomy. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified by symptom status and European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS) grade.ResultsThe study cohort comprised 6860 patients. Any ICH and symptomatic ICH (sICH) occurred in 25% and 7% of patients, respectively. Hemorrhagic infarction 1 (HI1) occurred in 36%, HI2 in 24%, parenchymal hemorrhage 1 (PH1) in 22%, and PH2 in 17% of patients classified by ECASS grade. Intraprocedural complications independently predicted any ICH (OR 3.8083, PConclusionsThis study identified ICH risk factors after AIS thrombectomy using real-world data. There was a propensity towards a reduced sICH risk with direct aspiration. Procedural complications and ethnicity were predictors congruent between categories of any ICH, sICH, PH1, and PH2. Further investigation of technique and ethnicity effects on ICH and outcomes after AIS thrombectomy is warranted.

BackgroundRecent clinical trials have shown that mechanical thrombectomy is superior to medical management for large vessel occlusion for up to 24 hours from onset. Our objective is to examine the safety and efficacy of thrombectomy beyond the standard of care window.MethodsA retrospective review was undertaken of the multicenter Stroke Thrombectomy and Aneurysm Registry (STAR). We identified patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion beyond 24 hours. We selected a matched control group from patients who underwent thrombectomy in the 6–24-hour window. We used functional independence at 3 months as our primary outcome measure.ResultsWe identified 121 patients who underwent thrombectomy beyond 24 hours and 1824 in the 6–24-hour window. We selected a 2:1 matched group of patients with thrombectomy 6–24 hours as a comparison group. Patients undergoing thrombectomy beyond 24 hours were less likely to be independent at 90 days (18 (18.8%) vs 73 (34.9%), P=0.005). They had higher odds of mortality at 90 days in the adjusted analysis (OR 2.34, P=0.023). Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and other complications were similar in the two groups. In a multivariate analysis only lower number of attempts was associated with good outcomes (OR 0.27, P=0.022).ConclusionsMechanical thrombectomy beyond 24 hours appears to be safe and tolerable with no more hemorrhages or complications compared with standard of care thrombectomy. Outcomes and mortality in this time window are worse compared with an earlier time window, but the rates of good outcomes may justify this therapy in selected patients.