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
Background: While rescue stenting (RS) is a recognized bailout strategy following failed endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO), 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. We conducted a comparative analysis of FLS versus RS using data from a large, multicenter international registry to evaluate their relative safety and effectiveness. Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of FLS versus RS using data from the RESISTANT registry, a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort of AIS patients treated with intracranial stenting during EVT (2016-2023). 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 (median age 67 years [IQR 59-77], 64.2% male) and 104 in the FLS cohort (median age 65.5 years [IQR 58.8-77], 72.1% male). Using FLS as the reference strategy, IPTW=adjusted analyses did not detect significant differences in functional independence (OR=0.64; 95% CI 0.38-1.07) or 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. In the anterior circulation cohort (n=589), outcomes were likewise comparable (functional independence: OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.60-1.25; sICH: OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.30-2.18). Similarly, in the posterior circulation cohort (n=234), no significant differences were found (functional independence: OR=0.82; 95% CI 0.32-2.10; sICH: OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.30-2.18). Conclusions: In this study, no significant differences in safety or effectiveness were detected between FLS and RS strategies during EVT for AIS. 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.