Mechanical thrombectomy in low Alberta stroke program early CT score (ASPECTS) in hyperacute stroke—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: Major randomized controlled trials of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) failed to include a substantial number of patients presenting with low baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS:0-5). Patients experiencing hyperacute strokes (last known well ≤ 6 h) can potentially benefit most from MT. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to report presentation severity and radiographic and clinical outcomes for hyperacute stroke patients presenting with low-ASPECTS. METHODS: Our comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to August 31, 2022 included articles reporting patients presenting hyperacutely who underwent MT for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion AIS with an ASPECTS ≤ 5 on baseline imaging. Pooled averages were calculated for age and presenting National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses for weighted estimation of overall rates were performed. Forest plots were generated for proportions and estimated overall outcome rates. RESULTS: 18 studies (1958 patients) were included (mean age = 64.1 years; presenting NIHSS = 18.4). Final modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b-3 grade was achieved in 76.4%, with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in 12.1%. Good (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2) and ambulatory (mRS 0-3) 3-month outcomes were achieved by 27.4 and 46.7%, respectively; 90-day mortality was 26.4%. CONCLUSION: MT in low-ASPECTS hyperacute stroke patients may result in ambulatory clinical outcomes with acceptable hemorrhage risk. Recanalization rates achieved were similar to those in patients presenting with ASPECTS ≥ 6; this did not fully translate to better clinical outcomes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: MT should be considered for hyperacute strokes with low presenting ASPECTS.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.