A. Rodriguez-Calienes, J. Vivanco-Suarez, M. Galecio-Castillo, J. Sequeiros, Cynthia B. Zevallos, M. Farooqui, F. Siddiqui, S. Ortega‐Gutierrez
{"title":"Rescue Stenting for Failed Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis","authors":"A. Rodriguez-Calienes, J. Vivanco-Suarez, M. Galecio-Castillo, J. Sequeiros, Cynthia B. Zevallos, M. Farooqui, F. Siddiqui, S. Ortega‐Gutierrez","doi":"10.1161/svin.123.000881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n When mechanical thrombectomy (MT) fails to achieve successful reperfusion, rescue stenting (RS) has proven to be a feasible rescue therapy. However, the available evidence remains underpowered to assess clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of RS versus routine medical management in patients with failed MT using an aggregated meta‐analysis.\n \n \n \n A systematic review was performed from inception to July 2022 of all studies using RS after failed MT. Outcomes of interest included a modified Rankin scale score of 0–2 at 90 days, successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b–3) after RS and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. A random‐effects meta‐analysis between the RS and medical treatment arms was performed to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) for each outcome. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed with I2 statistics.\n \n \n \n A total of 12 studies included 1855 participants, 729 in the RS arm and 1126 in the medical treatment arm. The pooled results indicated that RS was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with a modified Rankin scale score of 0–2 at 90 days (RS: 41% versus 21%; OR,3.27; [95% CI 2.08–5.16]; I2=64%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and a decreased risk of mortality at 90 days (RS: 22.5% versus 33.8%; OR, 0.47; [95% CI 0.32–0.69]; I2=45%; low‐certainty evidence), compared with medical treatment after failed MT. The pooled rate of successful reperfusion after RS was 87% (95% CI 82–91; I2=57%; low‐certainty evidence). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between groups (RS: 8.5% versus 11.7%; OR, 0.85; [95% CI 0.59–1.20]; I2=7%; low‐certainty evidence).\n \n \n \n RS is a promising strategy for maximizing recovery in acute stroke patients after first line MT fails to achieve meaningful reperfusion. However, randomized trials using a standardized approach/technique and MT failure definition are warranted to confirm these results.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.123.000881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
When mechanical thrombectomy (MT) fails to achieve successful reperfusion, rescue stenting (RS) has proven to be a feasible rescue therapy. However, the available evidence remains underpowered to assess clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of RS versus routine medical management in patients with failed MT using an aggregated meta‐analysis.
A systematic review was performed from inception to July 2022 of all studies using RS after failed MT. Outcomes of interest included a modified Rankin scale score of 0–2 at 90 days, successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b–3) after RS and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. A random‐effects meta‐analysis between the RS and medical treatment arms was performed to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) for each outcome. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed with I2 statistics.
A total of 12 studies included 1855 participants, 729 in the RS arm and 1126 in the medical treatment arm. The pooled results indicated that RS was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with a modified Rankin scale score of 0–2 at 90 days (RS: 41% versus 21%; OR,3.27; [95% CI 2.08–5.16]; I2=64%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and a decreased risk of mortality at 90 days (RS: 22.5% versus 33.8%; OR, 0.47; [95% CI 0.32–0.69]; I2=45%; low‐certainty evidence), compared with medical treatment after failed MT. The pooled rate of successful reperfusion after RS was 87% (95% CI 82–91; I2=57%; low‐certainty evidence). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between groups (RS: 8.5% versus 11.7%; OR, 0.85; [95% CI 0.59–1.20]; I2=7%; low‐certainty evidence).
RS is a promising strategy for maximizing recovery in acute stroke patients after first line MT fails to achieve meaningful reperfusion. However, randomized trials using a standardized approach/technique and MT failure definition are warranted to confirm these results.
当机械取栓(MT)不能成功实现再灌注时,抢救支架(RS)已被证明是一种可行的抢救治疗方法。然而,现有的证据仍然不足以评估临床结果。我们的目的是通过汇总meta分析来比较RS与常规医疗管理在MT失败患者中的安全性和有效性。从开始到2022年7月,对所有MT失败后使用RS的研究进行了系统回顾。感兴趣的结果包括90天时0-2的改良Rankin评分,RS后成功再灌注(改良脑梗死2b-3溶栓)和症状性颅内出血。在RS组和药物治疗组之间进行随机效应荟萃分析,计算每个结果的合并优势比(OR)。我们使用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级方法评估证据的确定性。采用I2统计评估各研究的统计异质性。共有12项研究包括1855名参与者,其中729人在RS组,1126人在医疗组。合并结果表明,RS与90天改良Rankin量表评分为0-2的患者比例显著升高相关(RS: 41%对21%;或者,3.27;[95% ci 2.08-5.16];I2 = 64%;中等确定性证据)和90天死亡风险降低(RS: 22.5% vs 33.8%;或者,0.47;[95% ci 0.32-0.69];I2 = 45%;低确定性证据),与MT失败后的药物治疗相比。RS后再灌注成功的合并率为87% (95% CI 82-91;I2 = 57%;低量确定的证据)。两组间症状性颅内出血发生率无差异(RS: 8.5% vs 11.7%;或者,0.85;[95% ci 0.59-1.20];I2 = 7%;低量确定的证据)。急性脑卒中患者在一线MT不能实现有意义的再灌注后,RS是一种很有希望的恢复策略。然而,使用标准化方法/技术和MT失败定义的随机试验有必要证实这些结果。