PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Tomasello, Alejandro AU - Moreu, Manuel AU - Terceño, Mikel AU - Dinia, Lavinia AU - Barrena Caballo, Maria Rosario AU - Requena, Manuel AU - Jablonska, Magda AU - Cendrero, Judith AU - Flores, Alan AU - Ortega, Santy AU - Diana, Francesco AU - Henandez, David AU - de Dios, Marta AU - Rubiera, Marta AU - Garcia-Tornel, Alvaro AU - Rizzo, Federica AU - Olivé, Marta AU - Pérez-García, Carlos AU - Trejo Gallego, Carmen AU - Carmona, Tomas AU - Rodrigo-Gisbert, Marc AU - Molina, Carlos AU - Ribo, Marc TI - A Randomised Study Comparing First-line Dual Vs Single-Stentretriever Technique: TWIN2WIN AID - 10.1101/2024.07.11.24310312 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2024.07.11.24310312 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/16/2024.07.11.24310312.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/16/2024.07.11.24310312.full AB - Importance Double stentretriever (double-SR) is used as a rescue technique when recanalization is not achieved in stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy. Double-SR, if applied as first-line technique could increase first-pass recanalization rates, known to be associated with better outcomes.Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of first-line double-SR in stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy.Design Randomized, controlled, blinded adjudicated primary outcome study between 2022 and 2023.Setting Multicenter (5 sites), national (Spain).Participants Patients with ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion within 24 hours after onset, undergoing thrombectomy.Interventions Upon confirmation of large vessel occlusion on initial angiogram, patients were randomly allocated to receive a first-line strategy: single-SR Vs double-SR technique. Investigators could use their technique of choice if further passes were needed.Main Outcomes and Measures The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of double-SR defined as first-pass complete recanalization (eTICI 2c-3) compared to single-SR. First/pass and final successful recanalization (eTICI2b50-3) were centrally assessed by a blinded investigator. The safety outcome was the occurrence of a symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). The data safety monitoring board stopped the recruitment after a pre-planned interim analysis because a predefined efficacy boundary was reached.Results From April 2022 to October 2023, 108 patients were included, 50 patients (46%) in the single-SR group and 58 (54%) in the double-SR group. FPR was achieved in 12/50 patients (24%) allocated to single-SR and 27/58 (46%) allocated to double-SR (aOR 2.72; 95% CI, 1.19-6.46). Substantial reperfusion within 3 attempts was obtained in 42 patients (84%) allocated to single-SR and in 52 (89%) allocated to double-SR (aOR 1.74; 95% CI, 0.55 - 5.76). The mean number of passes was 2±1.3 with single-SR and 1.7±1 with double-SR (mean difference, −0.37; 95% CI, −0.79 - 0.06). A sICH occurred in 3 patients (6%) allocated to single-SR and in 6 (10%) allocated to double-SR (aOR 1.66; 95% CI, 0.40-8.35).Conclusions and Relevance In stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy, first-line double-SR is safe and superior to single-SR in achieving first pass but not final recanalization. Implications on clinical outcomes should be studied in specifically designed trials.Trial Identification NCT05632458Question What is the safety and efficacy of the double stentretriever (SR) technique as a first-line treatment in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing endovascular treatment?Findings In this multicenter randomized, blinded primary endpoint adjudicated clinical trial that included 108 acute stroke patients, the rate of first-pass recanalization (TICI2c-3) was superior with double-SR as compared to single-SR technique.Meaning In acute stroke patients with a large vessel occlusion, the first-line use of the double SR technique increases the chances of first-pass recanalization, which has been associated with improved clinical outcomes.Competing Interest StatementMarc Ribo has a consulting agreement with Medtronic, Cerenovus, Balt, Vesalio, Anaconda Biomed, PErfuze and Rapid Pulse.Clinical TrialClinicalTrials.gov Trial Identification: NCT05632458Funding StatementThere was no specific funding involved in this studyAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona.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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesRelevant data will be shared upon reasonable request from researchers with trackable record in the field.