Search

Introduction: Chronic occlusion of the ICA (COICA) is an important cause of ischemic strokes. Evidence has showed that medical management (MM) alone is not sufficient for prevention of ischemic events. Carotid occlusion endovascular revascularization & stenting (COERS) is a promising technique, yet its safety and superiority to MM remain unclear. Objective: To pool and compare rates of safety and efficacy outcomes of COERS versus MM of COICA. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science for studies reporting short and long-term outcomes of symptomatic COICA patients who received MM and/or COERS. Main efficacy outcomes were successful recanalization and long-term recurrence of ischemic events. Safety outcomes for COERS were periprocedural ( Results: 11 studies contained data of COICA patients undergoing COERS, 3 studies of patients who received only MM, and 2 studies compared both arms; they provided data for 513 and 313 patients in the COERS and MM groups, respectively. The pooled recanalization rate after treatment with COERS was 75% (95% CI 0.67-0.82, PI 0.49-0.94, I 2 64%). Recurrence rates of ischemic events at long-term follow-up were 19% (95% CI 0.15-0.25, PI 0.11-0.32, I 2 25%) with MM, and 11% (95% CI 0.07-0.19, PI 0.02-0.42, I 2 2%) after COERS; comparison meta-analysis showed a similar non-significant trend (MM:24% vs. COERS:13%, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.17-1.59, I 2 0%). The rate of periprocedural events in the COERS group were 2.3% (95% CI 0.012-0.045, I 2 0%) for stroke/TIA, and 2.1% (95% CI 0.011-0.038, I 2 0%) for any ICH. Conclusion: COERS is a feasible technique and a safe strategy for maximizing secondary stroke prevention for the treatment of symptomatic COICA. Still, further prospective trials to better define safety and efficacy boundaries are needed before starting a RCT.

Introduction: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a highly safe and effective standard of care for acute ischemic strokes with large vessel occlusion. However, timely access to MT is extremely limited on a global scale, with vast disparities in access between countries. MT2020+, a global non-profit initiative of SVIN, aimed to create a semi-quantitative global MT access barrier score (MTABS) to objectively measure the barriers impeding the implementation of treatment worldwide. Methods: Four independent investigators performed an in-depth systematic literature review using the peer review of electronic search strategies. Barriers to access were identified and categorized into 3 groups: information and diagnostic, physical, and financial. An international expert panel was created and scored each attribute using a modified Delphi process with the assistance of consultants from the University of Calgary W21C. A 1-9-point scale was used, with 1 being not at all important and 9 being extremely important. A meeting was held for the attributes that require deliberation. After an agreement, a list of attributes for access was elaborated. Next, a ranking of importance and individual weighting was done. We assigned a presence of or lack of an attribute a numerical value (1 for yes, 0 for no) and multiply by its weight to determine a final score. Results: After an initial screening of 2864 abstracts, 121 studies were included in the final systematic review. A total of 34 possible attributes that are barriers to access were identified. After the modified Delphi process, 26 individual attributes were selected. The MTABS was made with possible results from 0-62 points, with higher scores meaning higher barriers to access to MT. Conclusions: The global MTABS represents the first tool to quantify barriers to MT access worldwide. Its implementation will objectively measure the magnitude and identify key barriers to guide regional public health interventions to improve MT workflow and access.

Introduction: When mechanical thrombectomy (MT) fails to achieve successful recanalization, rescue stenting (RS) has proven to be a feasible rescue therapy. However, the available evidence remains underpowered to assess its safety and efficacy. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of RS versus routine medical treatment in patients who failed MT using an aggregated metanalysis. Methods: A systematic review was performed in Scopus, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science from inception to July 2022 for all studies that tested the safety and efficacy of RS after failed MT. Outcomes of interest included an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days, successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3) after RS, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and all-cause mortality at 90 days. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed between the RS and medical treatment arm to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) for each outcome. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed with I 2 statistics. Results: In total 12 studies involved 1855 participants, 729 in the RS arm and 1126 in the medical treatment arm. The pooled results indicated that RS was associated with a higher proportion of patients with an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days (RS: 41% vs. 21%; OR = 3.27; 95% CI 2.08 - 5.16; I 2 = 64%) and a decreased risk of mortality at 90 days (RS: 22.5% vs. 33.8%; OR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 - 0.69; I 2 = 45%), compared with medical treatment after failed MT. The pooled rate of successful recanalization after RS was 87% (95% CI 82 - 91; I 2 = 57%). The rate of sICH did not differ between groups (RS: 8.5% vs. 11.7%; OR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.59 - 1.20; I 2 = 7%) Conclusion: RS represents a promising strategy that for maximizing recovery in acute stroke patients after first line MT fails to achieve meaningful reperfusion. However, a randomized trial using a standardized approach/technique and independently adjudicated outcomes is needed to confirm this observation.

Introduction: Definitive evidence about the role and effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with distal medium-vessel occlusions (DMVOs) is limited. Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of MT for DMVOs. Methods: A systematic search was performed until May 2022 in Scopus, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane. An additional cohort of 33 patients from our institutional experience was also included. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) and sICH, respectively. Additional outcomes were the rate of complete reperfusion (mTICI 3), 90-day excellent and favorable functional outcome (defined as an mRS of 0-1 and 0-2, respectively), and 90-day mortality. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed with I 2 statistics. Results: A total of 24 studies with 1046 patients were included in our analysis. Successful and complete reperfusion rates were 89.8% (95% CI 83.7-93.7%; I 2 =0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and 47.2% (95% CI 32.3-62.5%; I 2 =75%; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. Favorable and excellent functional outcome rates were 59.1% (95% CI 48.4-68.9%; I 2 =73%; moderate-certainty evidence) and 43% (95% CI 32.9-53.7%; I 2 =68%; low-certainty evidence), respectively. Mortality and sICH rates were 12.4% (95% CI 9.3-16.5%; I 2 =16%; high-certainty evidence) and 5.5% (95% CI 3.5-8.5%; I 2 =23%; moderate-certainty evidence), respectively. Conclusion: This systematic review with meta-analysis found that MT for DMVO provides rates of successful reperfusion and sICH comparable to the evidence from MT for LVO stroke and M2 occlusions. Given the level of evidence of our results, further confirmation on well-designed RCTs is needed.

Introduction: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a highly safe and effective standard of care for acute ischemic strokes with large vessel occlusion. However, timely access to MT is extremely limited on a global scale, with vast disparities in access between countries. MT2020+, a global non-profit initiative of SVIN, aimed to create a semi-quantitative global MT access barrier score (MTABS) to objectively measure the barriers impeding the implementation of treatment worldwide. Methods: Four independent investigators performed an in-depth systematic literature review using the peer review of electronic search strategies. Barriers to access were identified and categorized into 3 groups: information and diagnostic, physical, and financial. An international expert panel was created and scored each attribute using a modified Delphi process with the assistance of consultants from the University of Calgary W21C. A 1-9-point scale was used, with 1 being not at all important and 9 being extremely important. A meeting was held for the attributes that require deliberation. After an agreement, a list of attributes for access was elaborated. Next, a ranking of importance and individual weighting was done. We assigned a presence of or lack of an attribute a numerical value (1 for yes, 0 for no) and multiply by its weight to determine a final score. Results: After an initial screening of 2864 abstracts, 121 studies were included in the final systematic review. A total of 34 possible attributes that are barriers to access were identified. After the modified Delphi process, 26 individual attributes were selected. The MTABS was made with possible results from 0-62 points, with higher scores meaning higher barriers to access to MT. Conclusions: The global MTABS represents the first tool to quantify barriers to MT access worldwide. Its implementation will objectively measure the magnitude and identify key barriers to guide regional public health interventions to improve MT workflow and access.