Comparison between transradial and transfemoral mechanical thrombectomy for ICA and M1 occlusions: insights from the Stroke Thrombectomy and Aneurysm Registry (STAR)

Abstract

BackgroundThe role for the transradial approach for mechanical thrombectomy is controversial. We sought to compare transradial and transfemoral mechanical thrombectomy in a large multicenter database of acute ischemic stroke.MethodsThe prospectively maintained Stroke Thrombectomy and Aneurysm Registry (STAR) was reviewed for patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy for an internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery M1 occlusion. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess outcomes including reperfusion time, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), distal embolization, and functional outcomes.ResultsA total of 2258 cases, 1976 via the transfemoral approach and 282 via the transradial approach, were included. Radial access was associated with shorter reperfusion time (34.1 min vs 43.6 min, P=0.001) with similar rates of Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2B or greater reperfusion (87.9% vs 88.1%, P=0.246). Patients treated via a transradial approach were more likely to achieve at least TICI 2C (59.6% vs 54.7%, P=0.001) and TICI 3 reperfusion (50.0% vs 46.2%, P=0.001), and had shorter lengths of stay (mean 9.2 days vs 10.2, P<0.001). Patients treated transradially had a lower rate of symptomatic ICH (8.0% vs 9.4%, P=0.047) but a higher rate of distal embolization (23.0% vs 7.1%, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in functional outcome at 90 days between the two groups.ConclusionsRadial and femoral thrombectomy resulted in similar clinical outcomes. In multivariate analysis, the radial approach had improved revascularization rates, fewer cases of symptomatic ICH, and faster reperfusion times, but higher rates of distal emboli. Further studies on the optimal approach are necessary based on patient and disease characteristics.