| Literature DB >> 27071728 |
Anna Lambrinos1, Alexis K Schaink1, Irfan Dhalla1, Timo Krings2, Leanne K Casaubon3, Nancy Sikich1, Cheemun Lum4, Aditya Bharatha5, Vitor Mendes Pereira2, Grant Stotts6, Gustavo Saposnik7, Linda Kelloway8, Xuanqian Xie1, Michael D Hill9.
Abstract
Although intravenous thrombolysis increases the probability of a good functional outcome in carefully selected patients with acute ischemic stroke, a substantial proportion of patients who receive thrombolysis do not have a good outcome. Several recent trials of mechanical thrombectomy appear to indicate that this treatment may be superior to thrombolysis. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of new-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices with intravenous thrombolysis (if eligible) compared with intravenous thrombolysis (if eligible) in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by a proximal intracranial occlusion. We systematically searched seven databases for randomized controlled trials published between January 2005 and March 2015 comparing stent retrievers or thromboaspiration devices with best medical therapy (with or without intravenous thrombolysis) in adults with acute ischemic stroke. We assessed risk of bias and overall quality of the included trials. We combined the data using a fixed or random effects meta-analysis, where appropriate. We identified 1579 studies; of these, we evaluated 122 full-text papers and included five randomized control trials (n=1287). Compared with patients treated medically, patients who received mechanical thrombectomy were more likely to be functionally independent as measured by a modified Rankin score of 0-2 (odds ratio, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-3.04; I2=0%). This finding was robust to subgroup analysis. Mortality and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were not significantly different between the two groups. Mechanical thrombectomy significantly improves functional independence in appropriately selected patients with acute ischemic stroke.Entities:
Keywords: acute ischemic stroke; endovascular treatment; mechanical thrombectomy; meta-analysis; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27071728 PMCID: PMC4926268 DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2016.30
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Can J Neurol Sci ISSN: 0317-1671 Impact factor: 2.104
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow diagram. Adapted from Moher et al.
Baseline characteristics of included RCTs
| Treatment group (n) | Age | Type of occlusion, n (%) | NIHSS (range) | Status of IVT, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berkhemer et al. | ||||
| MT (n=233) | 65.8 (54.5-76.0) | Intracranial ICA: 1 (0.4) | 17 (14-21) | IVT: 203 (87.1) |
| 135 (57.9) | ICA with M1 MCA: 59 (25.3) | No IVT: 30 (12.9) | ||
| M1 MCA: 154 (66.1) | ||||
| M2 MCA: 18 (7.7) | ||||
| A1 or A2: 1 (0.4) | ||||
| Extracranial ICA: 75 (32.2) | ||||
| BMT (n=267) | 65.7 (55.5-76.4) | Intracranial ICA: 3 (1.1) | 18 (14-22) | IVT: 242 (90.6) |
| ICA with M1 MCA: 75 (28.2) | No IVT: 25 (9.4) | |||
| 157 (58.8) | M1: 165 (62.0) | |||
| M2: 21 (7.9) | ||||
| A1 or A2: 2 (0.8) | ||||
| Extracranial ICA: 70 (26.3) | ||||
| Campbell et al. | ||||
| MT (n=35) | 68.6 ± 12.3 | ICA: 11 (31) | 17 (13-20) | All patients received IVT |
| 17 (49) | M1 MCA: 20 (57) | |||
| M2 MCA: 4 (11) | ||||
| BMT (n=35) | 70.2 ± 11.8 | ICA: 11 (31) | 13 (9-19) | All patients received IVT |
| 17 (49) | M1: 18 (51) | |||
| M2: 6 (17) | ||||
| Goyal et al. | ||||
| MT (n=165) | 71 (60-81) | ICA with M1 MCA: 45/163 (27.6) | 16 (13-20) | IVT: 120 (72.7) |
| 79 (47.9) | M1 or all M2 MCA: 111/163 (68.1) | No IVT: 45 (27.3) | ||
| Single M2 MCA: 6/163 (3.7) | ||||
| Ipsilateral CC + I/MCA: 21 (12.7) | ||||
| BMT (n=150) | 70 (60-81) | ICA with M1 MCA: 39/147 (26.5) | 17 (12-20) | IVT: 118 (78.7) |
| 71 (47.3) | M1 or all M2 MCA: 105/147 (71.4) | No IVT: 32 (21.3) | ||
| Single M2 MCA: 3/147 (2.0) | ||||
| Ipsilateral CC + I/MCA: 19 (12.7) | ||||
| Jovin et al. | ||||
| MT (n=103) | 65.7 ± 11.3 | Intracranial ICA without M1: 0 (0) | 17 (14-20) | IVT: 70 (68.0) |
| 55 (53.4) | Terminal ICA with M1 MCA: 26/102 (25.5) | No IVT: 32 (32.0) | ||
| M1 MCA: 66/102 (64.7) | ||||
| Single M2 MCA: 10/102 (9.8) | ||||
| Ipsilateral CC: 19/102 (18.6) | ||||
| BMT (n=103) | 67.2 ± 9.5 | Intracranial ICA without M1: 1/101 (1.0) | 17 (12-19) | IVT: 80 (77.7) |
| 54 (52.4) | Terminal ICA with M1: 27/101 (26.7) | No IVT: 21 (22.3) | ||
| M1 MCA: 65/101 (64.4) | ||||
| Single M2 MCA: 8/101 (7.9) | ||||
| Ipsilateral CC: 13/101 (12.9) | ||||
| Saver et al. | ||||
| MT (n=98) | 65.0 ± 12.5 | ICA: 17/93(18.0) | 17 (13-20) | All patients received IVT |
| 54/98 (55.0) | M1 MCA: 62/93 (67.0) | |||
| M2 MCA: 13/93 (14.0) | ||||
| BMT (n=98) | 66.3 ± 11.3 | ICA: 15/94(16.0) | 17 (13-19) | All patients received IVT |
| 45/96 (47.0) | M1 MCA: 72/94 (77.0) | |||
| M2 MCA: 6/94 (6.0) | ||||
BMT, best medical therapy; CC, cervical carotid; ICA, internal carotid artery; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; MCA, middle cerebral artery; MT, mechanical thrombectomy; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health stroke scale; RCT, randomized clinical trial.
Age is reported as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range).
Figure 2Mechanical thrombectomy versus intravenous thrombolysis on the proportion of functionally independent patients at 90-day follow-up. CI, confidence interval; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; MT, mechanical thrombectomy.
Figure 3Mechanical Thrombectomy versus intravenous thrombolysis on mortality at 90-day follow-up. CI, confidence interval; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; MT, mechanical thrombectomy.
Figure 4Mechanical thrombectomy versus intravenous thrombolysis on SICH at 90-day follow-up. CI, confidence interval; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; MT, mechanical thrombectomy.