Abstract
Purpose
To date only a few studies have compared the effectiveness and functional outcomes of stent retrievers versus intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stoke. Our aim was to identify and collate all the available data and to assess for statistical differences in patient outcomes between the two treatments.
Materials and methods
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with a randomised controlled design which utilised stentrievers and intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke.
Results
Five randomised controlled studies published in 2015 were identified. Second-generation thrombectomy devices constituted at least 80% of thrombectomy devices in the included studies, namely MR CLEAN, ESCAPE, EXTEND-IA, SWIFT PRIME and REVASCAT. No significant heterogeneity was seen in the included studies and the five trials were therefore included in the meta-analysis.
A total of 46.10% of patients treated with stentrievers achieved an independent functional outcome (mRS < 2) at 90 days compared with 26.46% of those treated with intravenous thrombolysis with an odds ratio of 2.40 (p < 0.001). The weighted recanalisation mean in the thrombectomy arms was 76.02%.
A lower mortality rate was observed with stentrievers compared to intravenous thrombolysis (15.33% vs 18.74%; OR 0.81, p = 0.15). Stentrievers were also associated with a lower risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (7.86% vs 8.64%; OR 1.02, p = 0.93). The differences in the secondary/safety outcomes were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
Stentrievers can achieve a high rate of recanalisation and functional independence in acute ischaemic stroke and have a relatively good safety profile. Our meta-analysis demonstrates a clear benefit of an intra-arterial mechanical approach vs standard treatment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.