Acute embolic stroke with large-vessel occlusion: does contact aspiration thrombectomy show superiority?

Abstract

Aim: To compare the efficacy between contact aspiration thrombectomy and stent retriever thrombectomy in the treatment of acute embolic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion.

Materials and methods: Between January 2019 and June 2020, data from consecutive acute ischaemic stroke patients who underwent either endovascular contact aspiration or stent retriever thrombectomy were analysed at one institution. The primary outcome was the full 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between thrombectomy approach and functional outcomes.

Results: A total of 156 patients were analysed. Among them, 57 (36.5%) patients underwent primary aspiration thrombectomy, while 99 (63.5%) patients underwent primary stent retriever thrombectomy. The median procedure time was significantly shorter in patients treated with aspiration (37 versus 56 minutes; p<0.001). Compared with those of patients who underwent stent retriever thrombectomy, successful recanalisation rates and favourable functional outcome rates were higher in patients who underwent the aspiration approach (94.7% versus 77.8%, p=0.006; 49.1% versus 27.3%, p=0.006, respectively). Ordinal logistic regression analysis showed that aspiration thrombectomy was independently associated with a good functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.30, 95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.60, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Among the specific patients with large vessel occlusion in acute embolic stroke, the use of aspiration thrombectomy compared with stent retriever thrombectomy resulted in a greater likelihood of favourable neurological outcomes; however, because of study limitations, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and require further study to confirm these results.