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. This study aims 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) were compared to standard care, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), or intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) for AIS treatment. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality at 90 days. Efficacy outcomes 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. The 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). The MERCI, Solitaire, and aspiration devices were associated with a higher risk of sICH. For all-cause mortality at 90 days, the TREVO device 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 that contemporary stent-retriever device technology is the most effective option for improving functional recovery, achieving successful recanalization, 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
All author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
