Efficacy and safety of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration vs. stent retriever alone on revascularization in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveWhether the efficacy of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration (S + A) is superior to stent retriever (S) alone for revascularisation in patients with large vessel occlusive stroke remains uncertain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with large vessel occlusion by comparing it with stent retriever alone.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases for randomised controlled trials and observational studies (case-control and cohort studies) published before 1 October 2023 comparing the efficacy of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration versus tent retriever alone in patients with large vessel occlusive stroke. The end point of the primary efficacy observed in this meta-analysis study was the rate of first pass nearly complete or complete recanalisation (mTICI 2c-3). Secondary effectiveness nodes were: rate of first pass successful recanalisation (mTICI 2b-3), rate of near-complete or complete recanalisation of the postoperative vessel, rate of successful recanalisation of the postoperative vessel, and MRS 0–2 within 90 days. Safety endpoints were interoperative embolism, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality within 90 days.ResultsA total of 16 studies were included in the literature for this meta-analysis, with a total of 7,320 patients (S + C group: 3,406, S group: 3,914). A comprehensive analysis of the included literature showed that combined stent retriever and contact aspiration had a higher rate of near-complete or complete recanalisation of the postoperative vessel [OR = 1.53, 95% CI (1.24, 1.88), p