Delivery-assist catheters in mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel or medium-vessel occlusion is often treated with aspiration thrombectomy. Delivery-assist catheters (DAsCs) are a new class of tapered support catheters designed to facilitate navigation of large-bore aspiration catheters through tortuous anatomy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the procedural efficacy and safety of DAsC-assisted aspiration thrombectomy. METHODS: A PRISMA-guided systematic review identified studies using DAsCs during aspiration thrombectomy for large- or medium-vessel occlusions. We extracted data on successful reperfusion; first pass effect (FPE), defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) ≥2b (FPE≥2b) and mTICI≥2c (FPE≥2); use of adjunctive devices; and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Pooled event rates with 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. RESULTS: 14 studies were identified with 720 patients. Pooled successful reperfusion was 95% (95% CI 91 to 97%) for final mTICI ≥2b and 71% (95% CI 59% to 81%) for final mTICI ≥2c. FPE ≥2c was achieved in 51% (95% CI 43% to 59%) of cases, while FPE ≥2b was 65% (95% CI 54% to 75%). Adjunctive rescue devices were used in 23% (95% CI 17% to 30%) of procedures. Puncture-to-recanalization time was 26.1 min on average. The rate of sICH was 1% (95% CI 0% to 3%), and 44% (95% CI 39% to 50%) of patients had a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2. CONCLUSIONS: In pooled analysis, DAsC-assisted aspiration thrombectomy demonstrated high first pass efficacy and low hemorrhagic rates across single-arm studies. This meta-analysis supports DAsCs as a safe adjunct to aspiration thrombectomy. Prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate technical performance and safety relative to standard aspiration techniques.

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