Mechanical thrombectomy vs intravenous rt-PA in medium vessel occlusions: real-world data from the Italian SITS registry

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Recent randomized trials have questioned the benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) for medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) stroke, but data from clinical practice are limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), versus IVT alone in MeVO stroke using registry-based real-world data. Methods This retrospective multicenter study included patients from 82 Italian centers in the SITS registry (January 2020–December 2023). Adults with acute ischemic stroke due to MeVO (ACA A1/A2, MCA M2/M3 or more distal, or PCA P1/P2), treated with IVT or EVT±IVT, and with available 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were included. Patients with tandem occlusions were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance baseline variables. Primary outcome was functional independence (mRS 0–2) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intracranial hemorrhage incidence, and recanalization status. Results Among 1375 total patients, 780 were included and matched (390 per group) by propensity score. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Functional independence at 90 days was achieved in 57.7% of EVT±IVT patients versus 59.2% in the IVT-only group (OR 0.939, 95% CI 0.706–1.248, p=0.663). In-hospital mortality was non significantly lower in the EVT±IVT group (5.4% vs 8.7%, p=0.069). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates were comparable between groups, although overall hemorrhagic complications were higher with EVT (18.4% vs 11.2%, p<0.0001). Successful recanalization occurred in 81.0% of EVT cases. Stratified analyses by stroke severity and treatment timing showed consistent lack of benefit across all subgroups (all interaction p-values >0.05). Conclusions EVT did not improve long-term functional outcomes compared to IVT alone in MeVO stroke but was associated with higher hemorrhagic risk. These findings support a cautious approach to EVT in this setting, in line with recent trial evidence.

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