Evaluating Thrombectomy Devices and Combination Therapies in Acute ischemic Stroke: A systematic review & Network Meta-Analysis of 201 studies

Annu Gulia, Manyata Srivastava, Manabesh Nath, Shubham Misra, Kamalesh Kumar Patel, Ashish Datt Upadhyay, Deepti Vibha, Shashvat Desai, Pradeep Kumar
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.24.24316030

Abstract

Background and Objective Mechanical Thrombectomy (MT) has become the standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, the relative efficacy and safety of different MT devices remain uncertain. To evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of different Thrombectomy devices and combination therapies in acute ischemic stroke, utilizing a network meta-analysis.

Methods Patients receiving different MT devices (MERCI, TREVO, Solitaire, Penumbra, or a combination of MT devices) compared to Standard Care or Intravenous Thrombolysis (IVT), or Intra-arterial Thrombolysis (IAT) for AIS treatment. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality at 90 days. Efficacy outcome were good functional recovery at 90 days (defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2) and successful recanalization (measured by a TICI score of 2b-3).

Results We included 201 studies, comprising 43 RCTs and 159 cohort studies with 71,154 AIS patients. TREVO device demonstrated the highest efficacy for functional recovery (OR=3.63, 95% CrI: 2.45–5.43), followed by MT + IVT (OR=2.87, CrI: 2.30–3.59). TREVO also achieved the highest rate of successful recanalization (OR 3.35, CrI: 1.36–8.19). MERCI, Solitaire and Aspiration devices were linked to a higher risk of sICH. For all-cause mortality at 90 days, TREVO notably reduced the odds (OR=0.56, CrI: 0.37–0.86), whereas aspiration devices showed no significant difference from standard treatments.

Conclusion Our findings demonstrate contemporary stent-retriever device technology as the most effective option for improving functional recovery, recanalization success, and reducing mortality in AIS patients. These results highlight the critical need for selecting the most effective and safest thrombectomy device to optimize outcomes in acute stroke care.

Introduction

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) resulting from large vessel occlusion (LVO) represents a significant global health challenge, contributing to high morbidity and mortality rates.1 The introduction of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has markedly transformed the management of AIS, providing substantial improvements in patient outcomes when performed promptly.2 Consequently, MT has become the standard treatment for LVO-induced AIS. The rapid advancement and proliferation of various MT devices have created a complex landscape of treatment options, each characterized by distinct designs, mechanisms of action, and clinical outcomes.3 Among the devices available, MERCI, TREVO, Solitaire, and Penumbra are commonly used in clinical practice, each with its unique operational approach and efficacy profile.4,5

The MERCI (Mechanical Embolus Removal in Cerebral Ischemia) device, one of the first approved for thrombectomy, utilizes a corkscrew-shaped wire to capture and retrieve the thrombus.6 Despite its pivotal role, MERCI has largely been surpassed by newer devices due to lower recanalization rates and higher complication rates.7 The Penumbra system, in contrast, employs direct aspiration through a catheter to remove the clot. This device has shown high effectiveness, particularly in cases where the clot is soft and amenable to aspiration, and has been associated with favourable outcomes in numerous studies.8,9 Newer-generation stent retrievers (SR) like TREVO and Solitaire have become prevalent in many stroke centres.10–12 These devices deploy a self-expanding stent to ensnare the clot within its mesh, facilitating retrieval as the stent is withdrawn.13 Clinical studies have demonstrated that TREVO and Solitaire offer superior recanalization rates and safety profiles compared to older devices such as MERCI, resulting in improved overall clinical outcomes.14–16

The swift evolution of MT technology has led to a diverse array of devices with varying operational mechanisms and clinical efficacy.17 Despite this progress, the optimal device choice for different clinical scenarios remains debated, as direct comparative studies are limited. To address this gap, we undertook a network meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of these thrombectomy devices.

Methods

Protocol Registration

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines 18 and the study protocol was registered on PROSPERO.

Inclusion Criteria

Population (P): Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS).

Intervention (I): Mechanical Thrombectomy (MT) devices, including MERCI, TREVO, Solitaire, Penumbra, or a combination of MT devices.

Comparator (C): Standard Care, Intravenous Thrombolysis (IVT), or Intra-arterial Thrombolysis (IAT) with or without any MT devices.

Outcomes (O)

Safety outcomes: symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality at 90 days.

Efficacy outcome: good functional recovery at 90 days (defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2) and successful recanalization (measured by a TICI score of 2b-3).

Study Design (S): Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies (prospective or retrospective)

Exclusion Criteria

  • Had non-comparative designs.

  • Were conference proceedings, dissertations, preprints, ongoing studies, or grey literature without relevant outcome data.

Literature Search

A comprehensive search strategy was employed, combining keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) related to acute ischemic stroke, mechanical thrombectomy, and specific MT devices. Detailed search strategies are outlined in supplementary materials (Table eS1) covering publications up to June 30, 2024. To ensure completeness, references from relevant articles, including meta-analyses, reviews, and RCTs, were also reviewed.

View this table:
Table-eS1: Summary of Search Results Across Databases with Search Key Terms and results

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Reviewers working in pairs, independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, and extracted data using a pre-specified form according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction included:

Basic Information: Study name, countries, number of centers, treatment comparisons, and number of participants.

Participant Characteristics: Age, sex ratio, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography (ASPECT) score, details of anterior/posterior circulation occlusion, treatment procedures, and outcomes.

Outcomes: All outcomes were reported as dichotomous variables.

Discrepancies during study selection and data extraction were resolved through discussion with the corresponding author to reach a consensus

Quality Assessment

The quality of the included studies was assessed to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. For RCTs, the modified Jadad scale19,20 was utilized. For cohort studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)21 was employed.

Statistical Analysis

We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis of direct comparisons using a Bayesian random-effects model to obtain direct evidence. Treatment effects were estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) for dichotomous outcomes. Credible intervals provide a range of plausible values for the OR based on the observed data. We also calculated the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) curve values, including their CrI, to assess the uncertainty in MT device rankings. A SUCRA value closer to 100% indicates a higher rank in effectiveness (or safety) compared to other MT devices assessed in the NMA. Online web based MetaInsight tool (MetaInsight V4.0.2 Beta software) for Bayesian network meta-analyses were employed using random-effects model for all comparisons.22

Results

Selection Process

Figure-1 illustrates the PRISMA flow diagram outlining the selection process and the reasons for exclusion from the NMA. Of the 8,581 records initially identified, 6,080 were excluded prior to screening, leaving 2,501 records for review. After excluding 1,889 records, 612 reports were sought for retrieval; however, 247 could not be obtained. Among the 365 reports assessed for eligibility, 164 were excluded, resulting in 201 studies included in the final analysis comprising 43 RCTs and 158 cohort studies.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

PRISMA Flow Diagram for Study search, selection, and inclusion process.

Study Characteristics

eTable-S2 presents the characteristics and outcomes of the included studies. The studies were published between 2008 and 2024. Of the 201 studies, 113 were multicentric, 71 were single-centric, 3 were dual-centric, and 11 did not report their centricity. The sample sizes varied from 9 to 10,548 across different study arms. The criteria for defining sICH included the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III (ECASS III), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), an increase of 4 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study (SITS-MOST). Successful recanalization was defined by the modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI), the Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI), and the expanded Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia (eTICI) scores (2b-3). Studies were conducted across seven distinct countries, including 41 from China, 37 from the United States of America, 21 from Germany, 15 from France, and 7 each from Japan, South Korea, and Netherlands. All the included studies enrolled AIS patients ranging from 3 to 24 hours after the symptom onset.

View this table:
Table eS2: Baseline characteristics for the included studies in the network meta-analysis

The included studies that did not specify the exact device used were grouped under a general category of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) devices, with subcategories including MT combined with intra-arterial therapy (MT + IAT), MT combined with intravenous thrombolysis (MT + IVT). Standard treatment (ST), IAT and IVT were separate comparator in limited studies (Figure-eS1).

This approach allowed for the inclusion of studies where device specifics were not available, ensuring broader categorization. For studies that did not provide the exact name of the thrombectomy devices but described the general approach, we categorized them based on their mechanism of action. If a study utilized stent retrievers, aspiration devices, or a combination of both, they were grouped accordingly into stent retrievers (SR), aspiration devices (ASP), or a combination of both (SR + ASP). Finally, for studies that explicitly named the thrombectomy devices used, they were categorized based on the device, such as Penumbra, MERCI, Solitaire, or TREVO.

The analysis incorporated 12 interventions across all outcomes, with 13 to 15 multi-arm studies and 126 to 159 two-arm studies per outcome. There were 42 to 46 pairwise comparisons with direct data out of 66 possible comparisons. The total number of studies ranged from 137 for sICH to 172 for mRS, covering 52,114 to 71,154 patients and resulting in 4,221 to 52,086 events within the network. Table-1 indicates that no study reported zero events for all safety as well as efficacy outcomes. Figure 2 (a-d) shows the network geometry plots with the available direct comparisons for all efficacy (good functional recovery and successful recanalization) and safety outcomes for sICH within 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 90 days.

Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2

(a-d): Network map for the complete evidence network for: (a) good functional recovery at 90 days; (b) successful recanalization; (c) all-cause mortality at 90 days and (d) sICH within 24 hours.

View this table:
Table.1: Characteristics table of all studies

Quality Assessment

All 43 RCTs and 159 cohort studies included in the analysis were of high methodological quality with a low risk of bias (Table-eS2 and eS4[a-b]). This determination was made using rigorous assessment tools: RCTs were evaluated using modified Jadad Score, while cohort studies were assessed with the NOS Scale. These evaluations confirm that the study designs and reporting standards were methodologically sound, ensuring the reliability, validity of the findings and generalizability of the conclusions derived from the aggregated data.

View this table:
Table-eS3: League table representing summary estimates from network meta-analysis for: (a) good functional recovery at 90 days; (b) successful recanalization; (c) all-cause mortality at 90 days and (d) sICH within 24 hours.
View this table:
Table eS4

(a-b): Quality assessment using (a) Modified Jadad Scoring of all the included Randomized Controlled Studies (b) Newcastle Ottawa Scoring of all the included Cohort Studies Figure eS1: Distribution of Thrombectomy Devices across safety and efficacy outcomes.

Main Findings

Efficacy outcomes

a. Good functional recovery (mRS ≤2 at 90 days)

TREVO device showed the highest odds ratio (OR=3.63, 95% CrI: 2.45–5.43) for achieving good functional recovery at 90 days as compared to ST, followed closely by intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) (OR=2.84, 95% CrI: 1.70–4.74) and the combination of MT + IVT (OR =2.87, 95% CrI: 2.30–3.59). MERCI device demonstrated the lowest improvement (OR 1.63, 95% CrI: 1.04–2.55) [Figure 3(a)].

Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3

(a-d): Forest plot of relative effects from Bayesian random effect consistency model for: (a) good functional recovery at 90 days; (b) successful recanalization; (c) all-cause mortality at 90 days and (d) sICH within 24 hours.

b. Successful recanalization (TICI or TIMI flow ≥2b)

Successful recanalization was observed for TREVO device (OR 3.35, 95% CrI: 1.36–8.19), followed by (MT + IVT) (OR 3.04, 95% CrI: 1.48–6.17) and Asp (OR 2.87, 95% CI: 1.28–6.29) as compared to ST. Conversely, IVT significantly reduced the odds of successful recanalization (OR 0.41, 95% CrI: 0.17–0.95), and IAT also demonstrated lower odds (OR 0.91, 95% CrI: 0.37–2.22) but non-significant [Figure-3b].

Safety outcomes

Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage (sICH) within 24 hours

The MERCI device demonstrates the highest risk of sICH (OR=2.21; 95% CrI: 1.17–4.16), indicating that it more than doubles the odds of sICH compared to ST. Aspiration is similarly associated with a significant increase in risk (OR=2.03, 95% CrI: 1.22–3.34), as are the Solitaire device (OR=1.79, 95% CrI: 1.23–2.64), Stent Retriever (OR=1.83, 95% CrI: 1.33–2.54), and the combination of SR+Asp (OR= 1.89, 95% CrI: 1.41–2.54). Additionally, MT+IAT (OR 1.88, 95% CrI: 1.28–2.72) and MT+IVT (OR 1.86, 95% CrI: 1.37–2.54) significantly increased the odds of sICH.

In contrast, the Penumbra device exhibits a non-significant increase in risk (OR 1.19, 95% CrI: 0.65–2.15). The TREVO device (OR 1.77, 95% CrI: 0.954–3.34) and IAT (OR 1.95, 95% CrI: 0.94–3.91) suggest a potential increase in the odds of sICH, but their credible intervals include 1, rendering these findings not statistically significant. Overall, while several endovascular interventions are associated with an increased risk of sICH, the MERCI device presents the highest risk among those analyzed [Figure-3c].

All-cause Mortality at 90 days

TREVO device demonstrated the greatest reduction in mortality (OR=0.57; 95% CrI: 0.37–0.87), suggesting a substantial protective effect. This was followed closely by MT+IVT, which also showed a marked reduction in mortality (OR=0.58, 95% CrI: 0.47–0.71), and IAT, exhibited the most pronounced effect (OR=0.36, 95% CrI: 0.21–0.62). In contrast, aspiration (OR=0.99, 95% CrI: 0.69–1.4) did not result in a statistically significant reduction in mortality compared to ST, indicating no meaningful difference. Overall, the TREVO device and MT+IVT were the most effective interventions for reducing 90-day mortality, whereas aspiration had minimal impact [Figure-3d].

The league table, presented as Table eS3 (a-d), compares all treatment pairs and provides estimates from the NMA. According to the radial SUCRA plot [Figure 4(a-d)] and Litmus Rank-O-Gram [Figure 5 (a-d)], the TREVO device and MT + IVT exhibited the highest SUCRA values, indicating they were the most effective interventions. Compared to ST, TREVO and MT + IVT were associated with significantly higher rates of functional recovery at 90 days. Based on SUCRA values, the TREVO device (92% probability) and MT + IVT (85% probability) were identified as the most effective procedures for AIS. These interventions also significantly increased the odds of favourable outcomes compared to intravenous thrombolysis (IV t-PA). The large node sizes for TREVO and SR+Asp reflect a substantial number of participants, while the thicker connections between nodes, particularly among TREVO, MT + IVT, and SR, indicate these treatments were assessed in a higher number of trials.

Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4

(a-d): Radial SUCRA plot for (a) good functional recovery at 90 days; (b) successful recanalization; (c) all-cause mortality at 90 days and (d) sICH within 24 hours.

Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5

(a-d): Litmus Rank-O-Gram for (a) good functional recovery at 90 days; (b) successful recanalization; (c) all-cause mortality at 90 days and (d) sICH within 24 hours.

SUCRA plot for successful recanalization shows that TREVO has the highest SUCRA value, indicating it as the most effective device. MT IVT also performs well, while Solitaire and Penumbra show lower effectiveness. For all-cause mortality at 90 days, MT IVT leads with the highest SUCRA value, suggesting the greatest reduction in mortality. TREVO and MT IAT also rank high, whereas Penumbra and Solitaire are less effective. The plot for sICH within 24 hours highlights SR+Asp as the safest option with the highest SUCRA value, indicating the lowest risk of sICH. MT IAT also shows low risk, while Solitaire, and IVT are associated with higher sICH risk.

Discussion

Our NMA demonstrated that the TREVO device emerged as the most effective for improving functional recovery, successful recanalization, and reducing mortality rates in patients with AIS caused by LVO. Conversely, devices such as MERCI and Solitaire were associated with a higher incidence of sICH. This highlights a critical balance between efficacy and safety that must be considered when selecting an MT device. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest NMA on this topic synthesizing data from 71,154 AIS patients pooled from 201 studies.

For patients with AIS caused by LVO, previous RCTs have indicated that standard medical treatment or thrombolysis is inferior to MT. There is still ongoing debate over which MT devices offer the best outcomes in terms of functional recovery, lower mortality, reduced incidence of sICH, and higher recanalization success rates. A previous NMA by Deng et al.23 included five RCTs and five observational studies, totalling only 1,659 AIS subjects. Their findings indicated that both Solitaire and Trevo devices were associated with higher rates of functional independence compared to the Penumbra device. Additionally, Solitaire and Trevo demonstrated superior recanalization success rates compared to the Merci device. However, no significant differences were observed among the devices when assessing sICH and mortality rates.

In some instances, combining stent retrievers and aspiration techniques may be the most effective approach. The COMPASS trial,24 which randomized patients to receive either catheter aspiration or stent retriever treatment, found no significant difference in outcomes, suggesting that aspiration-first treatment is noninferior to stent retriever-first treatment. Additionally, the trial reported no significant differences in mortality, sICH, or other safety concerns between the two methods. Although some data suggest that combining stent retrievers with aspiration may offer slight advantages in achieving near-total or total reperfusion, these findings did not reach statistical significance. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Zaidat et al.25 suggests that the EmboTrap device may lead to significantly better functional outcomes compared to Solitaire and Trevo. Additionally, EmboTrap and Trevo were associated with lower rates of sICH and mortality than Solitaire. They included single-arm study, which can introduce biases based on population and procedural differences. Moreover, their study was lack of multi-arm RCTs which limits the ability to perform a network meta-analysis.

Our findings align with previous analyses, such as the NMA by Deng et al. (2019)23, which also highlighted the superiority of the Solitaire and Trevo devices over the Penumbra device in terms of functional independence. In our analysis, Solitaire and Trevo consistently demonstrated higher rates of successful recanalization compared to other devices, including Merci and Penumbra. This supports the growing consensus that stent retrievers like Solitaire and Trevo are among the most effective options for achieving favourable functional outcomes and high recanalization success rates in patients with AIS due to LVO.

Interestingly, despite the advantages in functional recovery and recanalization rates, our study, like previous analyses by Barral et al. (2018)26 and Zaidat et al. (2023),25 found no significant differences in mortality or the occurrence of sICH across various devices. This suggests that while certain devices may excel in recanalization and functional recovery, the risks associated with sICH and mortality are likely influenced by other factors, such as patient characteristics and procedural variables, rather than the choice of device alone.

Moreover, our analysis corroborates findings from studies by Ahmed et al. (2023)11 and Rajkumar et al. (2022),27 which emphasize the importance of considering both stent retrievers and aspiration techniques. While stent retrievers such as Solitaire and Trevo remain the gold standard in many clinical scenarios, emerging evidence suggests that aspiration techniques can offer competitive outcomes, particularly in specific patient subgroups. This reinforces the need for personalized treatment approaches, where the choice of device or combination of devices is tailored to the individual patient’s anatomical and clinical characteristics.

It is also worth noting that, similar to findings by Campbell et al. (2016)28 and Gory et al. (2018),29 the effectiveness of MT devices is highly dependent on operator experience and institutional protocols. Thus, ongoing training and refinement of endovascular techniques are crucial for optimizing patient outcomes across different healthcare settings.

Our study does have some limitations. First, we were unable to compare specific devices directly because many of the included studies used mixed devices and reported outcomes without specifying which device was used, while some studies only mentioned MT without naming the device. Second, the scales used to measure outcomes, such as sICH and successful recanalization, varied across the included studies. Third, the time window for enrolling AIS patients ranged from 3 to 24 hours after symptom onset, which may have influenced the outcomes. Fourth, we excluded a number of studies that only conducted single-arm comparisons, focusing solely on studies that included two or more arms for comparison. Additionally, although our analysis covered global studies from major regions like USA and Europe, studies on Asian populations were relatively rare. Lastly, we included both RCTs and cohort studies to provide a more comprehensive answer, given the limited number of published RCTs on this topic.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate contemporary stent-retriever device technology as the most effective option for improving functional recovery, recanalization success, and reducing mortality in AIS patients. These results highlight the critical need for selecting the most effective and safest thrombectomy device to optimize outcomes in acute stroke care.

Declaration

Author contributions

AG & MS: Study screening, Data curation, MN & SM: quality assessment & validation, KKP & ADS: Formal analysis, DV & SD; writing, reviewing & editing. PK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval and informed consent were not required for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Funding

All author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

None

References

  1. 1.
    Malhotra K, Gornbein J, Saver JL. Ischemic Strokes Due to Large-Vessel Occlusions Contribute Disproportionately to Stroke-Related Dependence and Death: A Review. Front Neurol. 2017;8:651. doi:10.3389/fneur.2017.00651
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    Campbell BCV, Donnan GA, Lees KR, et al. Endovascular stent thrombectomy: the new standard of care for large vessel ischaemic stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(8):846–854. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00140-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    Zaidat OO, Lazzaro M, McGinley E, et al. Demand-supply of neurointerventionalists for endovascular ischemic stroke therapy. Neurology. 2012;79(13 Suppl 1):S35-41. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31826957ef
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Pierre K, Perez-Vega C, Fusco A, et al. Updates in mechanical thrombectomy. Explor Neurosci. 2022;1(2):83–99. doi:10.37349/en.2022.00007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.
    Caranfa JT, Nguyen E, Ali R, et al. Mechanical endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke: An indirect treatment comparison between Solitaire and Penumbra thrombectomy devices. PloS One. 2018;13(3):e0191657. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191657
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    Hameed A, Zafar H, Mylotte D, Sharif F. Recent Trends in Clot Retrieval Devices: A Review. Cardiol Ther. 2017;6(2):193–202. doi:10.1007/s40119-017-0098-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    Broussalis E, Trinka E, Hitzl W, Wallner A, Chroust V, Killer-Oberpfalzer M. Comparison of stent-retriever devices versus the Merci retriever for endovascular treatment of acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(2):366–372. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3195
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.
    Zaidat OO, Fifi JT, Nanda A, et al. Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke With the Penumbra System in Routine Practice: COMPLETE Registry Results. Stroke. 2022;53(3):769–778. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034268
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    Hassan AE, Fifi JT, Zaidat OO. Aspiration thrombectomy with the Penumbra System for patients with stroke and late onset to treatment: a subset analysis of the COMPLETE registry. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1239640. doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1239640
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.
    Castaño C, Dorado L, Guerrero C, et al. Mechanical Thrombectomy With the Solitaire AB Device in Large Artery Occlusions of the Anterior Circulation. Stroke. 2010;41(8):1836–1840. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.584904
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.
    Azzam AY, Ghozy S, Kallmes KM, et al. Aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy alone for acute ischemic stroke: evaluating the overlapping meta-analyses. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2023;15(1):34–38. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018849
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.
    Lapergue B, Blanc R, Costalat V, et al. Effect of Thrombectomy With Combined Contact Aspiration and Stent Retriever vs Stent Retriever Alone on Revascularization in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke and Large Vessel Occlusion: The ASTER2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;326(12):1158–1169. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.13827
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    Bageac DV, Gershon BS, De Leacy RA. The Evolution of Devices and Techniques in Endovascular Stroke Therapy. In: Dehkharghani S, ed. Stroke. Exon Publications; 2021. Accessed September 1, 2024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572010/
  14. 14.
    Fanous AA, Siddiqui AH. Mechanical thrombectomy: Stent retrievers vs. aspiration catheters. Cor Vasa. 2016;58(2):e193–e203. doi:10.1016/j.crvasa.2016.01.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.
    Mendonça N, Flores A, Pagola J, et al. Trevo versus solitaire a head-to-head comparison between two heavy weights of clot retrieval. J Neuroimaging Off J Am Soc Neuroimaging. 2014;24(2):167–170. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2012.00730.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    Baek JW, Heo YJ, Kim ST, Seo JH, Jeong HW, Kim EG. Comparison of the Solitaire and Trevo Stents for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Single.Center Experience. Neurol India. 2021;69(2):378–382. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.314580
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    Mathews S, De Jesus O. Thrombectomy. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562154/
  18. 18.
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.
    Oremus M, Wolfson C, Perrault A, Demers L, Momoli F, Moride Y. Interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer’s disease drug trials. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2001;12(3):232–236. doi:10.1159/000051263
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.
    Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–605. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.
    Owen RK, Bradbury N, Xin Y, Cooper N, Sutton A. MetaInsight: An interactive web based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta analyses using R shiny and netmeta. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(4):569–581. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    Deng L, Qiu S, Wang L, Li Y, Wang D, Liu M. Comparison of Four Food and Drug Administration-Approved Mechanical Thrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Network Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:e49–e57. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    Turk AS, Siddiqui A, Fifi JT, et al. Aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy as first-line approach for large vessel occlusion (COMPASS): a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2019;393(10175):998–1008. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30297-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.
    Zaidat OO, Ikeme S, Sheth SA, et al. MASTRO I: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of thrombectomy stent retriever outcomes: comparing functional, safety and recanalization outcomes between EmboTrap, Solitaire and Trevo in acute ischemic stroke. J Comp Eff Res. 2023;12(5):e230001. doi:10.57264/cer-2023-0001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.
    Barral M, Boudour S, Viprey M, et al. Stent retriever thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including THRACE. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2018;174(5):319–326. doi:10.1016/j.neurol.2017.09.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    Rajkumar CA, Ganesananthan S, Ahmad Y, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy with retrievable stents and aspiration catheters for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. EuroIntervention J Eur Collab Work Group Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2022;17(17):e1425–e1434. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00343
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.
    Campbell BCV, Hill MD, Rubiera M, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Solitaire Stent Thrombectomy: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Stroke. 2016;47(3):798–806. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012360
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.
    Gory B, Armoiry X, Sivan-Hoffmann R, et al. A direct aspiration first pass technique for acute stroke therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2018;25(2):284–292. doi:10.1111/ene.13490
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

References

  1. 1.↵
    Smith WS, Sung G, Saver J, et al. Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Final Results of the Multi MERCI Trial. Stroke. 2008;39(4):1205–1212. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.497115
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Lin R, Vora N, Zaidi S, et al. Mechanical Approaches Combined With Intra-Arterial Pharmacological Therapy Are Associated With Higher Recanalization Rates Than Either Intervention Alone in Revascularization of Acute Carotid Terminus Occlusion. Stroke. 2009;40(6):2092–2097. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.544783
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Dávalos A, Pereira VM, Chapot R, et al. Retrospective multicenter study of Solitaire FR for revascularization in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2012;43(10):2699–2705. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663328
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Fischer U, Mono M L., Schroth G, et al. Endovascular therapy in 201 patients with acute symptomatic occlusion of the internal carotid artery. Eur J Neurol. 2013;20(7):1017–1024. doi:10.1111/ene.12094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Leker RR, Eichel R, Gomori JM, Ramirez de Noriega F, Ben-Hur T, Cohen JE. Stent-based thrombectomy versus intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in patients with acute middle cerebral artery occlusion. Stroke. 2012;43(12):3389–3391. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.673665
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Mendonça N, Flores A, Pagola J, et al. Trevo versus solitaire a head-to-head comparison between two heavy weights of clot retrieval. J Neuroimaging Off J Am Soc Neuroimaging. 2014;24(2):167–170. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2012.00730.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Nogueira RG, Lutsep HL, Gupta R, et al. Trevo versus Merci retrievers for thrombectomy revascularisation of large vessel occlusions in acute ischaemic stroke (TREVO 2): a randomised trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2012;380(9849):1231–1240. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61299-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Saver JL, Jahan R, Levy EI, et al. Solitaire flow restoration device versus the Merci Retriever in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (SWIFT): a randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2012;380(9849):1241–1249. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61384-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Broderick JP, Palesch YY, Demchuk AM, et al. Endovascular therapy after intravenous t-PA versus t-PA alone for stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(10):893–903. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1214300
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Ciccone A, Valvassori L, Nichelatti M, et al. Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(10):904–913. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1213701
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Kellert L, Hametner C, Rohde S, et al. Endovascular Stroke Therapy: Tirofiban Is Associated With Risk of Fatal Intracerebral Hemorrhage and Poor Outcome. Stroke. 2013;44(5):1453–1455. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000502
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Kidwell CS, Jahan R, Gornbein J, et al. A trial of imaging selection and endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(10):914–923. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1212793
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 42.↵
    for the ENDOSTROKE Study Group, Singer OC, Haring HP, et al. Periprocedural aspects in mechanical recanalization for acute stroke: data from the ENDOSTROKE registry. Neuroradiology. 2013;55(9):1143-1151. doi:10.1007/s00234-013-1219-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Sallustio F, Koch G, Di Legge S, et al. Intra-arterial thrombectomy versus standard intravenous thrombolysis in patients with anterior circulation stroke caused by intracranial arterial occlusions: a single-center experience. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2013;22(8):e323–331. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.01.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.
    Turk AS, Campbell JM, Spiotta A, et al. An investigation of the cost and benefit of mechanical thrombectomy for endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2014;6(1):77–80. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010616
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Deshaies EM, Singla A, Villwock MR, Padalino DJ, Sharma S, Swarnkar A. Early experience with stent retrievers and comparison with previous-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices for acute ischemic stroke. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(1):12–17. doi:10.3171/2014.2.JNS131372
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Jang MU, Hong JH, Kang J, et al. Current status of recanalization therapy in acute ischemic stroke with symptomatic intracranial arterial occlusion in Korea. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2014;23(5):e339–346. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.12.027
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Kass-Hout T, Kass-Hout O, Mokin M, et al. Is bridging with intravenous thrombolysis of any benefit in endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke? World Neurosurg. 2014;82(3-4):e453–458. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.097
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Ribo M, Molina CA, Jankowitz B, et al. Stentrievers versus other endovascular treatment methods for acute stroke: comparison of procedural results and their relationship to outcomes. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2014;6(4):265–269. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010748
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Son S, Choi DS, Oh MK, et al. Comparison of Solitaire thrombectomy and Penumbra suction thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by basilar artery occlusion. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2016;8(1):13–18. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011472
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Tomsick TA, Yeatts SD, Liebeskind DS, et al. Endovascular revascularization results in IMS III: intracranial ICA and M1 occlusions. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2015;7(11):795–802. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011318
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Delgado Almandoz JE, Kayan Y, Young ML, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic strokes treated with mechanical thrombectomy using either Solumbra or ADAPT techniques. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2016;8(11):1123–1128. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012122
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Berkhemer OA, Fransen PSS, Beumer D, et al. A randomized trial of intraarterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):11–20. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1411587
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    Bracard S, Ducrocq X, Mas JL, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy after intravenous alteplase versus alteplase alone after stroke (THRACE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(11):1138–1147. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30177-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Kleinig TJ, et al. Endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke with perfusion-imaging selection. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(11):1009–1018. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1414792
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Choi JH, Park HS, Kim DH, Cha JK, Huh JT, Kang M. Comparative Analysis of Endovascular Stroke Therapy Using Urokinase, Penumbra System and Retrievable (Solitare) Stent. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(5):342–349. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.5.342
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Goyal M, Demchuk AM, Menon BK, et al. Randomized assessment of rapid endovascular treatment of ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(11):1019–1030. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1414905
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Jovin TG, Chamorro A, Cobo E, et al. Thrombectomy within 8 hours after symptom onset in ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2296–2306. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1503780
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Leker RR, Pikis S, Gomori JM, Cohen JE. Is Bridging Necessary? A Pilot Study of Bridging versus Primary Stentriever-Based Endovascular Reperfusion in Large Anterior Circulation Strokes. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2015;24(6):1163–1167. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.01.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.
    Lobsien D, Gawlitza M, Schaudinn A, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy versus systemic thrombolysis in MCA stroke: a distance to thrombus-based outcome analysis. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2016;8(9):878–882. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011964
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.
    Saver JL, Goyal M, Bonafe A, et al. Stent-retriever thrombectomy after intravenous t-PA vs. t-PA alone in stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2285–2295. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1415061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    Sztajzel RF, Muller H, Sekoranja L, et al. Strokes in the anterior circulation: comparison between bridging and intravenous thrombolysis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2015;131(5):329–335. doi:10.1111/ane.12338
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    Behme D, Kabbasch C, Kowoll A, et al. Intravenous Thrombolysis Facilitates Successful Recanalization with Stent-Retriever Mechanical Thrombectomy in Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusions. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2016;25(4):954–959. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.01.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    Broeg-Morvay A, Mordasini P, Bernasconi C, et al. Direct Mechanical Intervention Versus Combined Intravenous and Mechanical Intervention in Large Artery Anterior Circulation Stroke: A Matched-Pairs Analysis. Stroke. 2016;47(4):1037–1044. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011134
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.
    Cabral NL, Conforto A, Magalhaes PSC, et al. Intravenous rtPA versus mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: A historical cohort in Joinville, Brazil. eNeurologicalSci. 2016;5:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ensci.2016.04.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    Guedin P, Larcher A, Decroix JP, et al. Prior IV Thrombolysis Facilitates Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2015;24(5):952–957. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.12.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.
    Hentschel KA, Daou B, Chalouhi N, et al. Comparison of non-stent retriever and stent retriever mechanical thrombectomy devices for the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. J Neurosurg. 2017;126(4):1123–1130. doi:10.3171/2016.2.JNS152086
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.
    Jadhav AP, Aghaebrahim A, Horev A, et al. Stent Retriever-Mediated Manual Aspiration Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke. Interv Neurol. 2017;6(1-2):16–24. doi:10.1159/000449321
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.
    Kabbasch C, Möhlenbruch M, Stampfl S, Mpotsaris A, Behme D, Liebig T. First-line lesional aspiration in acute stroke thrombectomy using a novel intermediate catheter: Initial experiences with the SOFIA. Interv Neuroradiol J Peritherapeutic Neuroradiol Surg Proced Relat Neurosci. 2016;22(3):333–339. doi:10.1177/1591019916632370
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.
    Kaesmacher J, Kleine JF. Bridging Therapy with i. v. rtPA in MCA Occlusion Prior to Endovascular Thrombectomy: a Double-Edged Sword? Clin Neuroradiol. 2018;28(1):81–89. doi:10.1007/s00062-016-0533-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.
    Kim YW, Son S, Kang DH, Hwang YH, Kim YS. Endovascular thrombectomy for M2 occlusions: comparison between forced arterial suction thrombectomy and stent retriever thrombectomy. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2017;9(7):626–630. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012466
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.
    Lapergue B, Blanc R, Guedin P, et al. A Direct Aspiration, First Pass Technique (ADAPT) versus Stent Retrievers for Acute Stroke Therapy: An Observational Comparative Study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(10):1860–1865. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4840
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.
    Alonso de Leciñana M, Martínez-Sánchez P, García-Pastor A, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy in patients with medical contraindications for intravenous thrombolysis: a prospective observational study. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2017;9(11):1041–1046. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012727
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.
    Maier IL, Behme D, Schnieder M, et al. Bridging-therapy with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator improves functional outcome in patients with endovascular treatment in acute stroke. J Neurol Sci. 2017;372:300–304. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.12.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.
    Minnerup J, Wersching H, Teuber A, et al. Outcome After Thrombectomy and Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Observational Study. Stroke. 2016;47(6):1584–1592. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.012619
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.
    Mocco J, Zaidat OO, von Kummer R, et al. Aspiration Thrombectomy After Intravenous Alteplase Versus Intravenous Alteplase Alone. Stroke. 2016;47(9):2331–2338. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.013372
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.
    Prothmann S, Friedrich B, Boeckh-Behrens T, et al. Aspiration thrombectomy in clinical routine interventional stroke treatment: Is this the end of the stent retriever era? Clin Neuroradiol. 2018;28(2):217–224. doi:10.1007/s00062-016-0555-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.
    Rai AT, Boo S, Buseman C, et al. Intravenous thrombolysis before endovascular therapy for large vessel strokes can lead to significantly higher hospital costs without improving outcomes. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2018;10(1):17–21. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012830
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.
    Romano DG, Cioni S, Leonini S, et al. Manual thromboaspiration technique as a first approach for endovascular stroke treatment: A single-center experience. Interv Neuroradiol J Peritherapeutic Neuroradiol Surg Proced Relat Neurosci. 2016;22(5):529–534. doi:10.1177/1591019916653256
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    Sarraj A, Sangha N, Hussain MS, et al. Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke With Occlusion of the Middle Cerebral Artery M2 Segment. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73(11):1291–1296. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.2773
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    Stapleton CJ, Leslie-Mazwi TM, Torok CM, et al. A direct aspiration first-pass technique vs stentriever thrombectomy in emergent large vessel intracranial occlusions. J Neurosurg. 2018;128(2):567–574. doi:10.3171/2016.11.JNS161563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.
    Weber R, Nordmeyer H, Hadisurya J, et al. Comparison of outcome and interventional complication rate in patients with acute stroke treated with mechanical thrombectomy with and without bridging thrombolysis. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2017;9(3):229–233. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012236
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.
    Abilleira S, Ribera A, Cardona P, et al. Outcomes After Direct Thrombectomy or Combined Intravenous and Endovascular Treatment Are Not Different. Stroke. 2017;48(2):375–378. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.015857
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.
    Bourcier R, Alexandre PL, Eugène F, et al. Is bridging therapy still required in stroke due to carotid artery terminus occlusions? J NeuroInterventional Surg. 2018;10(7):625–628. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013398
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.
    Bellwald S, Weber R, Dobrocky T, et al. Direct Mechanical Intervention Versus Bridging Therapy in Stroke Patients Eligible for Intravenous Thrombolysis: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Registries. Stroke. 2017;48(12):3282–3288. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018459
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.
    van den Berg LA, Dijkgraaf MGW, Berkhemer OA, et al. Two-Year Outcome after Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1341–1349. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1612136
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.
    Coutinho JM, Liebeskind DS, Slater LA, et al. Combined Intravenous Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy vs Thrombectomy Alone for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Pooled Analysis of the SWIFT and STAR Studies. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74(3):268–274. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.5374
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.
    Dias FA, Alessio-Alves FF, Castro-Afonso LH, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion in Brazil: An Observational Study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2017;26(10):2191–2198. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.04.043
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.
    Gerber JC, Daubner D, Kaiser D, et al. Efficacy and safety of direct aspiration first pass technique versus stent-retriever thrombectomy in acute basilar artery occlusion—a retrospective single center experience. Neuroradiology. 2017;59(3):297–304. doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1802-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.
    Heiferman DM, Li DD, Pecoraro NC, Smolenski AM, Tsimpas A, Ashley WW. Intra-Arterial Alteplase Thrombolysis during Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;26(12):3004–3008. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.07.031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.
    Hesse AC, Behme D, Kemmling A, et al. Comparing different thrombectomy techniques in five large-volume centers: a “real world” observational study. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2018;10(6):525–529. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013394
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.
    Khoury NN, Darsaut TE, Ghostine J, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy and medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in acute stroke: A randomized care trial. J Neuroradiol J Neuroradiol. 2017;44(3):198–202. doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2017.01.126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.
    Maegerlein C, Prothmann S, Lucia KE, Zimmer C, Friedrich B, Kaesmacher J. Intraprocedural Thrombus Fragmentation During Interventional Stroke Treatment: A Comparison of Direct Thrombus Aspiration and Stent Retriever Thrombectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40(7):987–993. doi:10.1007/s00270-017-1614-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    Merlino G, Sponza M, Petralia B, et al. Short and long-term outcomes after combined intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy versus direct mechanical thrombectomy: a prospective single-center study. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017;44(2):203–209. doi:10.1007/s11239-017-1527-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    Mourand I, Abergel E, Mantilla D, et al. Favorable revascularization therapy in patients with ASPECTS ≤ 5 on DWI in anterior circulation stroke. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2018;10(1):5–9. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013358
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.
    Muir KW, Ford GA, Messow CM, et al. Endovascular therapy for acute ischaemic stroke: the Pragmatic Ischaemic Stroke Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) randomised, controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017;88(1):38–44. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2016-314117
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.
    Nishi H, Ishii A, Nakahara I, et al. Different learning curves between stent retrieval and a direct aspiration first-pass technique for acute ischemic stroke. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(6):1456–1463. doi:10.3171/2017.6.JNS17872
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.
    Park HK, Chung JW, Hong JH, et al. Preceding Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients Receiving Endovascular Therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis Basel Switz. 2017;44(1-2):51–58. doi:10.1159/000471492
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.
    Romano DG, Cioni S, Vinci SL, et al. Thromboaspiration technique as first approach for endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke: initial experience at nine Italian stroke centers. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2017;9(1):6–10. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012298
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.
    Wang H, Zi W, Hao Y, et al. Direct endovascular treatment: an alternative for bridging therapy in anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion stroke. Eur J Neurol. 2017;24(7):935–943. doi:10.1111/ene.13311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.
    Wee CK, McAuliffe W, Phatouros CC, et al. Outcomes of Endovascular Thrombectomy with and without Thrombolysis for Acute Large Artery Ischaemic Stroke at a Tertiary Stroke Centre. Cerebrovasc Dis Extra. 2017;7(2):95–102. doi:10.1159/000470855
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.
    Zhao W, Che R, Shang S, et al. Low-Dose Tirofiban Improves Functional Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Treated With Endovascular Thrombectomy. Stroke. 2017;48(12):3289–3294. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.019193
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.
    Anadani M, Ajinkya S, Alawieh A, et al. Intra-Arterial Tissue Plasminogen Activator Is a Safe Rescue Therapy with Mechanical Thrombectomy. World Neurosurg. 2019;123:e604–e608. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.232
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.
    Albers GW, Marks MP, Kemp S, et al. Thrombectomy for Stroke at 6 to 16 Hours with Selection by Perfusion Imaging. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):708–718. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1713973
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.
    Al-Khaled M, Brüning T, Gottwald C, Roessler F, Royl G, Eckey T. Comparing outcome and recanalization results in patients with anterior circulation stroke following endovascular treatment with and without a treatment with rt-PA: A single-center study. Brain Behav. 2018;8(5):e00974. doi:10.1002/brb3.974
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.
    Balodis A, Radzina M, Miglane E, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy in anterior circulation stroke and clinical value of bridging with intravenous thrombolysis. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 1987. 2019;60(3):308-314. doi:10.1177/0284185118780897
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.
    Chen Z, Zhang R, Zhou Y, et al. Patients With Ischemic Core ≥70 ml Within 6 h of Symptom Onset May Still Benefit From Endovascular Treatment. Front Neurol. 2018;9:933. doi:10.3389/fneur.2018.00933
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.
    Choi JH, Im SH, Lee KJ, Koo JS, Kim BS, Shin YS. Comparison of Outcomes After Mechanical Thrombectomy Alone or Combined with Intravenous Thrombolysis and Mechanical Thrombectomy for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke due to Large Vessel Occlusion. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:e165–e172. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.
    Di Maria F, Mazighi M, Kyheng M, et al. Intravenous Thrombolysis Prior to Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Silver Bullet or Useless Bystander? J Stroke. 2018;20(3):385–393. doi:10.5853/jos.2018.01543
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.
    Ferrigno M, Bricout N, Leys D, et al. Intravenous Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator: Influence on Outcome in Anterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke Treated by Mechanical Thrombectomy. Stroke. 2018;49(6):1377–1385. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.020490
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.
    Gariel F, Lapergue B, Bourcier R, et al. Mechanical Thrombectomy Outcomes With or Without Intravenous Thrombolysis. Stroke. 2018;49(10):2383–2390. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.021500
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.
    Gory B, Mazighi M, Blanc R, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy in basilar artery occlusion: influence of reperfusion on clinical outcome and impact of the first-line strategy (ADAPT vs stent retriever). J Neurosurg. 2018;129(6):1482–1491. doi:10.3171/2017.7.JNS171043
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.
    Heinrichs A, Nikoubashman O, Schürmann K, et al. Relevance of standard intravenous thrombolysis in endovascular stroke therapy of a tertiary stroke center. Acta Neurol Belg. 2018;118(1):105–111. doi:10.1007/s13760-018-0892-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.
    Imbarrato G, Bentley J, Gordhan A. Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Thrombectomy in Tissue Plasminogen Activator versus Non-Tissue Plasminogen Activator Patients at Primary Stroke Care Centers. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2018;9(2):240–244. doi:10.4103/jnrp.jnrp_497_17
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.
    Jiang S, Peng Y, Jing CH, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy can be beneficial to acute ischemic stroke patients with large infarcts. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(4):1383–1390. doi:10.3171/2017.11.JNS171297
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.
    Leker RR, Cohen JE, Tanne D, et al. Direct Thrombectomy versus Bridging for Patients with Emergent Large-Vessel Occlusions. Interv Neurol. 2018;7(6):403–412. doi:10.1159/000489575
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.
    Maingard J, Shvarts Y, Motyer R, et al. Outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy with and without bridging thrombolysis for acute large vessel occlusion ischaemic stroke. Intern Med J. 2019;49(3):345–351. doi:10.1111/imj.14069
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.
    Nogueira RG, Jadhav AP, Haussen DC, et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 Hours after Stroke with a Mismatch between Deficit and Infarct. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(1):11–21. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1706442
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.
    Nogueira RG, Frei D, Kirmani JF, et al. Safety and Efficacy of a 3-Dimensional Stent Retriever With Aspiration-Based Thrombectomy vs Aspiration-Based Thrombectomy Alone in Acute Ischemic Stroke Intervention: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(3):304. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.3967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.
    Guimarães Rocha M, Carvalho A, Rodrigues M, et al. Primary Thrombectomy Versus Combined Mechanical Thrombectomy and Intravenous Thrombolysis in Large Vessel Occlusion Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2019;28(3):627–631. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.11.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.
    Sallustio F, Koch G, Alemseged F, et al. Effect of mechanical thrombectomy alone or in combination with intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. J Neurol. 2018;265(12):2875–2880. doi:10.1007/s00415-018-9073-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.
    Sallustio F, Pampana E, Davoli A, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy of acute ischemic stroke with a new intermediate aspiration catheter: preliminary results. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2018;10(10):975–977. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013679
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. 93.
    Wu Y, Yin C, Yang J, Jiang L, Parsons MW, Lin L. Endovascular Thrombectomy: Tirofiban Increases Bleeding Risk in Acute Stroke Patients. Stroke. 2018;49(11):2783–2785. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022919
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.
    Yi HJ, Lee DH, Kim SU. Effectiveness of Trevo stent retriever in acute ischemic stroke: Comparison with Solitaire stent. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(20):e10747. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000010747
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.
    Yi TY, Chen WH, Wu YM, Zhang MF, Lin DL, Lin XH. Adjuvant intra-arterial rt-PA injection at the initially deployed solitaire stent enhances the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. J Neurol Sci. 2018;386:69–73. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2018.01.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.
    Zhang S, Hao Y, Tian X, et al. Safety of Intra-Arterial Tirofiban Administration in Ischemic Stroke Patients after Unsuccessful Mechanical Thrombectomy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30(2):141–147.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2018.08.021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.
    Atchaneeyasakul K, Malik AM, Yavagal DR, et al. Thrombectomy Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke due to Middle Cerebral Artery M2 Occlusion with Stent Retriever versus Aspiration: A Multicenter Experience. Interv Neurol. 2020;8(2-6):180–186. doi:10.1159/000500198
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.
    Casetta I, Pracucci G, Saletti A, et al. Combined intravenous and endovascular treatment versus primary mechanical thrombectomy. The Italian Registry of Endovascular Treatment in Acute Stroke. Int J Stroke Off J Int Stroke Soc. 2019;14(9):898–907. doi:10.1177/1747493019851279
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. 99.
    Chalos V, LeCouffe NE, Uyttenboogaart M, et al. Endovascular Treatment With or Without Prior Intravenous Alteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(11):e011592. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.011592
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.
    Gamba M, Gilberti N, Premi E, et al. Intravenous fibrinolysis plus endovascular thrombectomy versus direct endovascular thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke: clinical and infarct volume results. BMC Neurol. 2019;19(1):103. doi:10.1186/s12883-019-1341-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.
    Gong L, Zheng X, Feng L, et al. Bridging Therapy Versus Direct Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke due to Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion: A Clinical-Histological Analysis of Retrieved Thrombi. Cell Transplant. 2019;28(6):684–690. doi:10.1177/0963689718823206
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.
    Goyal N, Tsivgoulis G, Pandhi A, et al. Impact of pretreatment with intravenous thrombolysis on reperfusion status in acute strokes treated with mechanical thrombectomy. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2019;11(11):1073–1079. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014746
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. 103.
    Hassan AE, Kotta H, Garza L, et al. Pre-thrombectomy intravenous thrombolytics are associated with increased hospital bills without improved outcomes compared with mechanical thrombectomy alone. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2019;11(12):1187–1190. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014837
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. 104.
    Haussen DC, Eby B, Al-Bayati AR, et al. A comparative analysis of 3MAX aspiration versus 3 mm Trevo Retriever for distal occlusion thrombectomy in acute stroke. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2020;12(3):279–282. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014990
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.
    Kakita H, Yoshimura S, Uchida K, et al. Impact of Endovascular Therapy in Patients With Large Ischemic Core: Subanalysis of Recovery by Endovascular Salvage for Cerebral Ultra-Acute Embolism Japan Registry 2. Stroke. 2019;50(4):901–908. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.
    Liu X, Dai Q, Ye R, et al. Endovascular treatment versus standard medical treatment for vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (BEST): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(2):115–122. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30395-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.
    Turk AS, Siddiqui A, Fifi JT, et al. Aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy as first-line approach for large vessel occlusion (COMPASS): a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2019;393(10175):998–1008. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30297-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.
    Pu Y. Comparison of different types of endovascular mechanical embolectomy in acute ischemic stroke. Rev Assoc Medica Bras 1992. 2019;65(3):342-347. doi:10.1590/1806-9282.65.3.342
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  109. 109.
    Sarraj A, Hassan AE, Savitz S, et al. Outcomes of Endovascular Thrombectomy vs Medical Management Alone in Patients With Large Ischemic Cores: A Secondary Analysis of the Optimizing Patient’s Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT) Study. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(10):1147–1156. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. 110.
    Strambo D, Bartolini B, Beaud V, et al. Thrombectomy and Thrombolysis of Isolated Posterior Cerebral Artery Occlusion: Cognitive, Visual, and Disability Outcomes. Stroke. 2020;51(1):254–261. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026907
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.
    Sun C, Li X, Zhao Z, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban Combined With Mechanical Thrombectomy Depend on Ischemic Stroke Etiology. Front Neurol. 2019;10:1100. doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.01100
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 112.
    Zaidi SF, Castonguay AC, Jumaa MA, et al. Intraarterial Thrombolysis as Rescue Therapy for Large Vessel Occlusions: Analysis From the North American Solitaire Stent-Retriever Acute Stroke Registry. Stroke. 2019;50(4):1003–1006. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024442
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.
    Zhang Y, Zhang QQ, Fu C, et al. Clinical efficacy of tirofiban combined with a Solitaire stent in treating acute ischemic stroke. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2019;52(10):e8396. doi:10.1590/1414-431x20198396
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 114.
    Cao J, Lin H, Lin M, et al. RECO Flow Restoration Device Versus Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy Study (REDIRECT): a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg. 2020;134(5):1569–1577. doi:10.3171/2020.3.JNS193356
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.
    Charbonnier G, Bonnet L, Bouamra B, et al. Does Intravenous Thrombolysis Influence the Time of Recanalization and Success of Mechanical Thrombectomy during the Acute Phase of Cerebral Infarction? Cerebrovasc Dis Extra. 2020;10(1):28–35. doi:10.1159/000507119
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. 116.
    Fredrickson VL, Bonney PA, Rangwala SD, et al. Comparison of aspiration-first versus stentriever-first techniques in performing mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusions. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2021;13(7):614–618. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016547
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  117. 117.
    Hinsenveld WH, de Ridder IR, van Oostenbrugge RJ, et al. Intravenous Thrombolysis Is Not Associated with Increased Time to Endovascular Treatment. Cerebrovasc Dis Basel Switz. 2020;49(3):321–327. doi:10.1159/000508898
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  118. 118.
    Kaesmacher J, Bellwald S, Dobrocky T, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Intra-arterial Urokinase After Failed, Unsuccessful, or Incomplete Mechanical Thrombectomy in Anterior Circulation Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(3):318. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.
    Kerleroux B, Janot K, Dargazanli C, et al. Perfusion Imaging to Select Patients with Large Ischemic Core for Mechanical Thrombectomy. J Stroke. 2020;22(2):225–233. doi:10.5853/jos.2019.02908
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.
    Kim YW, Sohn SI, Yoo J, et al. Local tirofiban infusion for remnant stenosis in large vessel occlusion: tirofiban ASSIST study. BMC Neurol. 2020;20(1):284. doi:10.1186/s12883-020-01864-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.
    Martins SO, Mont’Alverne F, Rebello LC, et al. Thrombectomy for Stroke in the Public Health Care System of Brazil. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(24):2316–2326. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2000120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.
    Reiff T, Barthel O, Ringleb PA, Pfaff J, Mundiyanapurath S. Safety of Mechanical Thrombectomy with Combined Intravenous Thrombolysis in Stroke Treatment 4.5 to 9 Hours from Symptom Onset. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2020;29(11):105204. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105204
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  123. 123.
    Yang P, Zhang Y, Zhang L, et al. Endovascular Thrombectomy with or without Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Stroke. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):1981–1993. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001123
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. 124.
    Yang M, Huo X, Gao F, et al. Low dose rescue tirofiban in mechanical thrombectomy for acute cerebral large artery occlusion. Eur J Neurol. 2020;27(6):1056–1061. doi:10.1111/ene.14170
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. 125.
    Yang J, Wu Y, Gao X, et al. Intraarterial Versus Intravenous Tirofiban as an Adjunct to Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. 2020;51(10):2925–2933. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. 126.
    Zha M, Huang K, Yang D, et al. Bridge mechanical thrombectomy may be a better choice for acute large vessel occlusions. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2021;52(1):291–300. doi:10.1007/s11239-020-02307-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.
    Zhao L, Jian Y, Li T, et al. The Safety and Efficiency of Tirofiban in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Treated with Mechanical Thrombectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Biochem Res Int. 2020;2020:1–8. doi:10.1155/2020/5656173
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  128. 128.
    Baek JW, Heo YJ, Kim ST, Seo JH, Jeong HW, Kim EG. Comparison of the Solitaire and Trevo Stents for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Single.Center Experience. Neurol India. 2021;69(2):378–382. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.314580
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 129.
    Baik SH, Jung C, Kim JY, et al. Local Intra-arterial Thrombolysis during Mechanical Thrombectomy for Refractory Large-Vessel Occlusion: Adjunctive Chemical Enhancer of Thrombectomy. Am J Neuroradiol. 2021;42(11):1986–1992. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7264
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  130. 159.
    the Italian Registry of Endovascular Treatment in Acute Stroke (IRETAS) Study Group, Cappellari M, Saia V, et al. Different endovascular procedures for stroke with isolated M2-segment MCA occlusion: a real-world experience. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2021;51(4):1157-1162. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02378-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.
    Huu An N, Dang Luu V, Duy Ton M, et al. Thrombectomy Alone versus Bridging Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Preliminary Results of an Experimental Trial. Clin Ter. 2022;173(2):107–114. doi:10.7417/CT.2022.2403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. 132.
    Douarinou M, Gory B, Consoli A, et al. Impact of Strategy on Clinical Outcome in Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Successfully Reperfused: ETIS Registry Results. Stroke. 2022;53(1). doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034422
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  133. 133.
    Geng C, Li S, Zhang D, et al. Endovascular Thrombectomy Versus Bridging Thrombolysis: Real World Efficacy and Safety Analysis Based on a Nationwide Registry Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(3):e018003. doi:10.1161/JAHA.120.018003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. 134.
    Jang SH, Sohn SI, Park H, et al. The Safety of Intra-arterial Tirofiban during Endovascular Therapy after Intravenous Thrombolysis. Am J Neuroradiol. 2021;42(9):1633–1637. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7203
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  135. 135.
    Jian Y, Zhao L, Jia B, et al. Direct versus Bridging Mechanical Thrombectomy in Elderly Patients with Acute Large Vessel Occlusion: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Clin Interv Aging. 2021;16:1265–1274. doi:10.2147/CIA.S313171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.
    Krajíčková D, Krajina A, Herzig R, Vyšata O, Šimůnek L, Vališ M. Acute Recanalization of Large Vessel Occlusion in the Anterior Circulation Stroke: Is Mechanical Thrombectomy Alone Better in Patients over 80 Years of Age? Findings from a Retrospective Observational Study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(18):4266. doi:10.3390/jcm10184266
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. 137.
    Langezaal LCM, van der Hoeven EJRJ, Mont’Alverne FJA, et al. Endovascular Therapy for Stroke Due to Basilar-Artery Occlusion. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(20):1910–1920. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2030297
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. 138.
    LeCouffe NE, Kappelhof M, Treurniet KM, et al. A Randomized Trial of Intravenous Alteplase before Endovascular Treatment for Stroke. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(20):1833–1844. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107727
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. 139.
    Ma G, Li S, Jia B, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Low-Dose Tirofiban Combined With Intravenous Thrombolysis and Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Matched-Control Analysis From a Nationwide Registry. Front Neurol. 2021;12:666919. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.666919
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. 140.
    Maier IL, Leha A, Badr M, et al. Inhouse Bridging Thrombolysis Is Associated With Improved Functional Outcome in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: Findings From the German Stroke Registry. Front Neurol. 2021;12:649108. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.649108
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  141. 141.
    Mohammaden MH, Haussen DC, Pisani L, et al. Stent-retriever alone vs. aspiration and stent-retriever combination in large vessel occlusion stroke: A matched analysis. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(4):465–473. doi:10.1177/17474930211019204
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.
    Neki H, Katano T, Maeda T, Shibata A, Komine H, Kikkawa Y. Intraarterial urokinase for thrombus migration after mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel ischemic stroke. Interv Neuroradiol. 2023;29(1):88–93. doi:10.1177/15910199211069464
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. 143.
    Pienimäki JP, Ollikainen J, Sillanpää N, Protto S. In-Hospital Intravenous Thrombolysis Offers No Benefit in Mechanical Thrombectomy in Optimized Tertiary Stroke Center Setting. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021;44(4):580–586. doi:10.1007/s00270-020-02727-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. 144.
    Seners P, Oppenheim C, Turc G, et al. Perfusion Imaging and Clinical Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke with Large Core. Ann Neurol. 2021;90(3):417–427. doi:10.1002/ana.26152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. 145.
    Sila D, Lenski M, Vojtková M, Elgharbawy M, Charvát F, Rath S. Efficacy of Mechanical Thrombectomy using Penumbra ACETM Aspiration Catheter Compared to Stent Retriever SolitaireTM FR in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke. Brain Sci. 2021;11(4):504. doi:10.3390/brainsci11040504
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. 146.
    Suzuki K, Matsumaru Y, Takeuchi M, et al. Effect of Mechanical Thrombectomy Without vs With Intravenous Thrombolysis on Functional Outcome Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: The SKIP Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;325(3):244–253. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.23522
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  147. 147.
    Tanaka K, Yamagami H, Yoshimoto T, et al. Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients With Prestroke Disability. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(15):e020783. doi:10.1161/JAHA.121.020783
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. 148.
    Tong X, Wang Y, Fiehler J, et al. Thrombectomy Versus Combined Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy in Patients With Acute Stroke: A Matched-Control Study. Stroke. 2021;52(5):1589–1600. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.031599
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  149. 149.
    Yang X, Jia X, Ren H, Zhang H. The short- and long-term efficacies of endovascular interventions for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke patients. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(5):5436–5443.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  150. 150.
    Yoshimoto T, Inoue M, Tanaka K, et al. Identifying large ischemic core volume ranges in acute stroke that can benefit from mechanical thrombectomy. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2021;13(12):1081–1087. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016934
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  151. 151.
    Zaidi SF, Castonguay AC, Zaidat OO, et al. Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis after Unsuccessful Mechanical Thrombectomy in the STRATIS Registry. Am J Neuroradiol. 2021;42(4):708–712. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6962
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  152. 152.
    Zhou T, Li T, Zhu L, et al. Comparing the efficacy and safety of the Skyflow device with those of the Solitaire FR stent in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2022;14(11):1130–1134. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018117
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  153. 153.
    Zi W, Qiu Z, Li F, et al. Effect of Endovascular Treatment Alone vs Intravenous Alteplase Plus Endovascular Treatment on Functional Independence in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: The DEVT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;325(3):234–243. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.23523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  154. 154.
    Anadani M, Marnat G, Consoli A, et al. Endovascular therapy with or without intravenous thrombolysis in acute stroke with tandem occlusion. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2022;14(4):314–320. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-017202
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  155. 155.
    Quang Anh N, Dang Luu V, Hoang Khoe L, et al. Effect of mechanical thrombectomy with vs. without intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke. Clin Ter. 2022;173(3):257–264. doi:10.7417/CT.2022.2429
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. 156.
    Collette SL, Bokkers RPH, Mazuri A, et al. Intra-arterial thrombolytics during endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke in the MR CLEAN Registry. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2023;8(1):17–25. doi:10.1136/svn-2022-001677
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  157. 157.
    Fischer U, Kaesmacher J, Strbian D, et al. Thrombectomy alone versus intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in patients with stroke: an open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2022;400(10346):104–115. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00537-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. 158.
    Garcia-Esperon C, Bivard A, Johns H, et al. Association of Endovascular Thrombectomy With Functional Outcome in Patients With Acute Stroke With a Large Ischemic Core. Neurology. 2022;99(13):e1345–e1355. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000200908
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  159. 159.
    Huang J, Zhang M, Nie Q, et al. Efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis combined with mechanical stent interventional thrombectomy on acute ischemic stroke. J Med Biochem. 2022;41(4):483–490. doi:10.5937/jomb0-35652
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. 160.
    Huo X, Sun D, Hu M, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy with combined stent retriever and contact aspiration versus stent retriever alone for acute large vessel occlusion: data from ANGEL-ACT registry. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2023;8(4):318–326. doi:10.1136/svn-2022-001765
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  161. 161.
    Jovin TG, Li C, Wu L, et al. Trial of Thrombectomy 6 to 24 Hours after Stroke Due to Basilar-Artery Occlusion. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(15):1373–1384. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2207576
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. 162.
    El Malky I, Abdelhafiz M, Abdelkhalek HMo. Intravenous thrombolysis before thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: a dual centre retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):21071. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-25696-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  163. 163.
    Mitchell PJ, Yan B, Churilov L, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy versus standard bridging thrombolytic with endovascular thrombectomy within 4·5 h of stroke onset: an open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2022;400(10346):116–125. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00564-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. 164.
    Pan X, Xu M, Fei Y, et al. Influence of tirofiban on stroke outcome after mechanical thrombectomy in acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion. BMC Neurol. 2022;22(1):460. doi:10.1186/s12883-022-02996-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. 165.
    Platko S, Bensabeur F, Rotsching N, et al. Intravenous thrombolysis prior to mechanical thrombectomy does not affect clinical or procedural outcomes in patients with large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke. J Clin Neurosci Off J Neurosurg Soc Australas. 2022;100:120–123. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2022.04.016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  166. 166.
    Prajapati C, Huded V, Mahajan N, Kulkarni A, Manual D. Comparing bridging thrombolysis with direct thrombectomy in stroke due to large vessel occlusion-Indian Experience (LVO-Direct). Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2022;25(5):869. doi:10.4103/aian.aian_1062_21
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. 167.
    Siow I, Tan BYQ, Lee KS, et al. Bridging Thrombolysis versus Direct Mechanical Thrombectomy in Stroke Due to Basilar Artery Occlusion. J Stroke. 2022;24(1):128–137. doi:10.5853/jos.2021.02082
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. 168.
    Smith EE, Zerna C, Solomon N, et al. Outcomes After Endovascular Thrombectomy With or Without Alteplase in Routine Clinical Practice. JAMA Neurol. 2022;79(8):768–776. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.1413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. 169.
    Sun D, Huo X, Raynald null, et al. Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis Vs. Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Minor Ischemic Stroke Due to Large Vessel Occlusion. Front Neurol. 2022;13:860987. doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.860987
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  170. 170.
    Sykora M, Michel P, Strambo D, et al. Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Stroke Patients with Moderate to Severe Pre-Stroke Disability. J Stroke. 2022;24(3):396–403. doi:10.5853/jos.2022.00906
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. 171.
    Tao C, Nogueira RG, Zhu Y, et al. Trial of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Basilar-Artery Occlusion. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(15):1361–1372. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206317
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  172. 172.
    Tu WJ, Xu Y, Liu Y, Du J, Zhao J. Endovascular thrombectomy or bridging therapy in minor ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion. Thromb Res. 2022;219:150–154. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2022.09.020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. 173.
    Yoshimura S, Sakai N, Yamagami H, et al. Endovascular Therapy for Acute Stroke with a Large Ischemic Region. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(14):1303–1313. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2118191
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. 174.
    Bendszus M, Fiehler J, Subtil F, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke with established large infarct: multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2023;402(10414):1753–1763. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02032-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. 175.
    Broocks G, McDonough R, Bechstein M, et al. Benefit and risk of intravenous alteplase in patients with acute large vessel occlusion stroke and low ASPECTS. J NeuroInterventional Surg. 2023;15(1):8–13. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017986
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  176. 176.
    D’Anna L, Foschi M, Russo M, et al. Endovascular Thrombectomy with or without Intravenous Thrombolysis for Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusion in the Imperial College London Thrombectomy Registry. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):1150. doi:10.3390/jcm12031150
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. 177.
    Dittrich TD, Sporns PB, Kriemler LF, et al. Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Best Medical Treatment in the Late Time Window in Non-DEFUSE-Non-DAWN Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Stroke. 2023;54(3):722–730. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.039793
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  178. 178.
    Fan H, Li Z, Li Y, et al. Comparison of a direct aspiration first pass technique vs. stent retriever thrombectomy for the treatment of acute large vessel occlusion stroke in the anterior circulation with atrial fibrillation. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1138993. doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1138993
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  179. 179.
    Faizy TD, Broocks G, Heit JJ, et al. Association Between Intravenous Thrombolysis and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Unsuccessful Mechanical Reperfusion. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2310213. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10213
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  180. 180.
    Hassan AE, Fifi JT, Zaidat OO. Aspiration thrombectomy with the Penumbra System for patients with stroke and late onset to treatment: a subset analysis of the COMPLETE registry. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1239640. doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1239640
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  181. 181.
    Hu X, Zhou Y, Ospel J, et al. Intracranial hemorrhage in large vessel occlusion patients receiving endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase: a secondary analysis of the DIRECT-MT trial. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2023;15(10):977–982. doi:10.1136/jnis-2022-019021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  182. 182.
    Huang CM, Hong YF, He WC, et al. Aspiration Thrombectomy Versus Stent-Retriever Thrombectomy for the First-Pass Therapy of Intracranial Atherosclerosis–Related Large Vessel Occlusion: A Post Hoc Analysis of The Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Trial. World Neurosurg. 2024;183:e366–e371. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.12.101
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. 183.
    Huo X, Ma G, Tong X, et al. Trial of Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke with Large Infarct. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(14):1272–1283. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2213379
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. 184.
    Ji X, Song B, Zhu H, et al. A study on endovascular treatment alone and bridging treatment for acute ischemic stroke. Eur J Med Res. 2023;28(1):12. doi:10.1186/s40001-022-00966-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  185. 185.
    Li BH, Yu NW, Wang JH, et al. Direct Thrombectomy versus Bridging Thrombectomy within 6 Hours of Stroke Onset: A Prospective Cohort Study on Cognitive and Physical Function Outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 2023;34(11):1875–1881.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2023.07.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. 186.
    Lin L, Zhang H, Liu F, et al. Bridging Thrombolysis Before Endovascular Therapy in Stroke Patients With Faster Core Growth. Neurology. 2023;100(20):e2083–e2092. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000207154
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  187. 187.
    Molad J, Hallevi H, Seyman E, et al. The pivotal role of timing of intravenous thrombolysis bridging treatment prior to endovascular thrombectomy. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2023;16:17562864231216637. doi:10.1177/17562864231216637
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  188. 188.
    Nguyen TN, Abdalkader M, Qureshi MM, et al. First Line Stent Retriever Versus Contact Aspiration or Combined Technique for Endovascular Therapy of Posterior Cerebral Artery Occlusion Stroke: The PLATO Study. Stroke Vasc Interv Neurol. 2024;4(1):e001004. doi:10.1161/SVIN.123.001004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  189. 189.
    Olthuis SGH, Pirson FAV, Pinckaers FME, et al. Endovascular treatment versus no endovascular treatment after 6–24 h in patients with ischaemic stroke and collateral flow on CT angiography (MR CLEAN-LATE) in the Netherlands: a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2023;401(10385):1371–1380. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00575-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. 190.
    Qureshi AI, Lodhi A, Ma X, et al. Intraarterial thrombolytics as an adjunct to mechanical thrombectomy in patients with basilar artery occlusion. J Neuroimaging. 2023;33(3):415–421. doi:10.1111/jon.13089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. 191.
    Ramazanoglu L, Kocak M, Aslan IK, Onal Y, Velioglu M, Gozke E. Thrombectomy with or without Bridging Thrombolysis for Anterior Circulation Stroke. Neurol India. 2023;71(2):248–254. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.375439
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  192. 192.
    Sarraj A, Hassan AE, Abraham MG, et al. Trial of Endovascular Thrombectomy for Large Ischemic Strokes. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(14):1259–1271. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2214403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  193. 193.
    Yoo AJ, Zaidat OO, Al Kasab S, et al. Intraarterial Treatment Versus No Intraarterial Treatment within 24 Hours in Patients with Ischaemic Stroke and Large Infarct on Noncontrast CT (TESLA): A Multicentre, Open-Label, Blinded-Endpoint, Randomised, Controlled, Phase 3 Trial. Published online 2023. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4587818
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  194. 194.
    Del Toro-Pérez C, Amaya-Pascasio L, Guevara-Sánchez E, Ruiz-Franco ML, Arjona-Padillo A, Martínez-Sánchez P. Direct Mechanical Thrombectomy vs. Bridging Therapy in Stroke Patients in A “Stroke Belt” Region of Southern Europe. J Pers Med. 2023;13(3):440. doi:10.3390/jpm13030440
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. 195.
    Athiyappan KM, Cherian M, Mehta P, et al. Safety Profile of Intra-Arterial Tirofiban as a Rescue Therapy during Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Clin Interv Radiol ISVIR. 2024;08(01):011–021. doi:10.1055/s-0043-1775981
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  196. 196.
    Demeestere J, Qureshi MM, Vandewalle L, et al. Outcomes of Bridging Intravenous Thrombolysis Versus Endovascular Therapy Alone in Late-Window Acute Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. Published online May 15, 2024:STROKEAHA.124.046495. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.046495
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  197. 197.
    Meder G, Żuchowski P, Skura W, et al. Mechanical Thrombectomy in Stroke—Retrospective Comparison of Methods: Aspiration vs. Stent Retrievers vs. Combined Method—Is Aspiration the Best Starting Point? J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):1477. doi:10.3390/jcm13051477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  198. 198.
    Rodriguez-Calienes A, Galecio-Castillo M, Farooqui M, et al. Safety Outcomes of Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Combined Thrombectomy and Intravenous Thrombolysis in Tandem Lesions. Stroke. 2023;54(10):2522–2533. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.042966
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. 199.
    Räty S, Nguyen TN, Nagel S, et al. Endovascular Thrombectomy Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis of Posterior Cerebral Artery Occlusion Stroke. J Stroke. 2024;26(2):290–299. doi:10.5853/jos.2024.00458
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. 200.
    Shavi T, Pandey P, Acharya UV. A Study of Efficacy and Outcomes of Two Techniques of Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke. Indian J Neurosurg. Published online February 8, 2024:s-0043-1778689. doi:10.1055/s-0043-1778689
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  201. 201.
    Zhou H, Zhong W, Zhang T, et al. Comparing Outcomes of Thrombectomy Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis Based on Middle Cerebral Artery M2 Occlusion Features. Stroke. 2024;55(6):1592–1600. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.044986
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted October 27, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email
Evaluating Thrombectomy Devices and Combination Therapies in Acute ischemic Stroke: A systematic review & Network Meta-Analysis of 201 studies
Annu Gulia, Manyata Srivastava, Manabesh Nath, Shubham Misra, Kamalesh Kumar Patel, Ashish Datt Upadhyay, Deepti Vibha, Shashvat Desai, Pradeep Kumar
medRxiv 2024.10.24.24316030; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.24.24316030
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area