Stent retriever versus aspiration based thrombectomy: impact on first pass reperfusion, procedure time, and clinical outcomes in large vessel occlusion. Nationwide registry based cohort study

Abstract

BackgroundFirst pass reperfusion (FPR), defined as near complete reperfusion (extended Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia (eTICI) score 2c/3) in a single attempt without rescue therapy has been proposed as a quality metric. However, it remains unclear if the thrombectomy method influences clinical outcome and FPR rate. This study evaluates whether stent retriever and aspiration based thrombectomy differ in FPR rate, technical and clinical outcomes in FPR, and multiple pass reperfusion (MPR).MethodsThis retrospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study included consecutive patients with proximal anterior or posterior circulation stroke, treated between 2018 and 2021 in Sweden. Outcome measures were FPR rate, procedure time, early neurological improvement (≥4 points on National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) or a score of 0–1 at 24 hours), favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2 or no decline at 90 days), and mortality at 90 days.ResultsOf 3309 patients (median age 75, median NIHSS 16), 1990 underwent stent retriever and 1319 aspiration based thrombectomy as the firstline method. No difference in FPR rate was observed. Aspiration based thrombectomy showed a shorter procedure time in the FPR group (crude OR (cOR) 6.4 min (95% CI 3.4 to 9.3), adjusted OR (aOR) 8.7 min (95% CI 1.8 to 15.6)) and MPR group (cOR 9.7 min (95% CI 4.0 to 15.4), aOR 17.4 min (95% CI 9.6 to 25.2)), and association with early neurological improvement (cOR 1.21 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.42), aOR 1.40 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.67)) and favorable functional outcome (aOR 1.22 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.47)).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that aspiration based thrombectomy was associated with a shorter procedure time and better clinical outcomes than treatment with a stent retriever. No difference was found in FPR rate.