Abstract DP342: Rescue versus First-Line Intracranial Stenting during Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis of the RESISTANT Registry

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: Rescue stenting (RS) is a recognized bailout strategy following failed endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). First-line stenting (FLS) has emerged as a potential alternative to avoid vascular injury and improve outcomes. However, direct comparisons between these strategies remain limited. Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of FLS and RS using data from the RESISTANT registry, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort of AIS patients who received intracranial stenting during EVT from 2016 to 2023. Patients were categorized by stenting strategy: FLS (stent placed without prior thrombectomy) or RS (stent placed after failed thrombectomy). The primary effectiveness outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0–2) at 90 days. The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline differences. Results: Among 827 patients, 723 were in the RS cohort and 104 in the FLS cohort. Compared to RS, FLS patients more often had diabetes (46.2% vs. 35.2%, p =0.03), prior stroke (46.2% vs. 25.3%, p <0.001), prior antiplatelet use (50.0% vs. 27.7%, p <0.001), and known ICAS (28.8% vs. 6.0%, p <0.001). They also had lower baseline NIHSS scores at presentation (median 8 vs. 14, p <0.001) and shorter onset-to-recanalization times (median 363 vs. 392 min, p =0.006). After IPTW adjustment, functional independence was similar between groups (OR=0.64; 95% CI 0.38–1.07), as was the risk of sICH (OR=0.93; 95% CI 0.34–2.59). No significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes including successful reperfusion, mortality, or procedural complications. Outcomes were similar in both the anterior circulation subgrou (n=589; functional independence: OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.60–1.25; sICH: OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.30–2.18) and the posterior circulation subgroup (n=234; functional independence: OR=0.82; 95% CI 0.32–2.10; sICH: OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.30–2.18). Conclusion: FLS and RS strategies during EVT for AIS demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to better define optimal treatment approaches.

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