Thrombectomy in M2 occlusion compared to M1 occlusion: treatment effects of Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b and TICI 3 recanalization on functional outcome.

intervention stroke thrombectomy

Journal

Journal of neurointerventional surgery
ISSN: 1759-8486
Titre abrégé: J Neurointerv Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101517079

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Mar 2023
Historique:
received: 20 11 2022
accepted: 14 02 2023
entrez: 29 3 2023
pubmed: 30 3 2023
medline: 30 3 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Emerging data suggest that mechanical thrombectomy (MT) might also be safe and efficient for medium and distal occlusions. This study aims to compare average treatment effects on functional outcome of different degrees of recanalization after MT in patients with M2 occlusion and M1 occlusion. All patients enrolled in the German Stroke Registry (GSR) between June 2015 and December 2021 were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were stroke with primary M1 occlusion or M2 occlusion, and availability of relevant clinical data. 4259 patients were included, thereof 1353 with M2 occlusion and 2906 with M1 occlusion. Treatment effects were analyzed using double-robust inverse-probability-weighted regression-adjustment (IPWRA) estimators to control for confounding covariates. Binarized endpoint metrics were defined as good outcome with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤2 at 90 days, and linearized endpoint metrics were defined as mRS shift pre-stroke to 90 days. Effects were evaluated for near complete recanalization (Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction scale (TICI) 2b) and complete recanalization (TICI 3). Treatment effect estimation for TICI ≥2b versus TICI <2b in M2 occlusions showed an increase in the probability of a good outcome from 27% to 47% with a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 5. For M1 occlusions the probability of a good outcome increased from 16% to 38% with NNT 4.5. TICI 3 versus TICI 2b increased the probability of a good outcome by 7 percentage points in M1 occlusions; for M2 occlusions the beneficial effect was not significant. Results suggest that successful recanalization with TICI ≥2b versus TICI <2b after MT in M2 occlusions provides significant patient benefit with treatment effects comparable to M1 occlusions. The probability of functional independence increased by 20 percentage points (NNT 5) and stroke-related mRS increase was reduced by 0.9 mRS points. In contrast to M1 occlusions, complete recanalization TICI 3 versus TICI 2b had lower additional beneficial effect.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Emerging data suggest that mechanical thrombectomy (MT) might also be safe and efficient for medium and distal occlusions. This study aims to compare average treatment effects on functional outcome of different degrees of recanalization after MT in patients with M2 occlusion and M1 occlusion.
METHODS METHODS
All patients enrolled in the German Stroke Registry (GSR) between June 2015 and December 2021 were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were stroke with primary M1 occlusion or M2 occlusion, and availability of relevant clinical data. 4259 patients were included, thereof 1353 with M2 occlusion and 2906 with M1 occlusion. Treatment effects were analyzed using double-robust inverse-probability-weighted regression-adjustment (IPWRA) estimators to control for confounding covariates. Binarized endpoint metrics were defined as good outcome with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤2 at 90 days, and linearized endpoint metrics were defined as mRS shift pre-stroke to 90 days. Effects were evaluated for near complete recanalization (Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction scale (TICI) 2b) and complete recanalization (TICI 3).
RESULTS RESULTS
Treatment effect estimation for TICI ≥2b versus TICI <2b in M2 occlusions showed an increase in the probability of a good outcome from 27% to 47% with a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 5. For M1 occlusions the probability of a good outcome increased from 16% to 38% with NNT 4.5. TICI 3 versus TICI 2b increased the probability of a good outcome by 7 percentage points in M1 occlusions; for M2 occlusions the beneficial effect was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest that successful recanalization with TICI ≥2b versus TICI <2b after MT in M2 occlusions provides significant patient benefit with treatment effects comparable to M1 occlusions. The probability of functional independence increased by 20 percentage points (NNT 5) and stroke-related mRS increase was reduced by 0.9 mRS points. In contrast to M1 occlusions, complete recanalization TICI 3 versus TICI 2b had lower additional beneficial effect.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36990689
pii: jnis-2022-019898
doi: 10.1136/jnis-2022-019898
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: HK and FF are consultants for Eppdata GmbH. HK has financial interest in Eppdata GmbH. MD-C has received research grants from the Werner Otto Stiftung and serves in the advisory board of the PRECIOUS Trial. TDF has received research grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Foundation. GT Thomalla received fees as consultant from Acandis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Portola, and fees as lecturer from Acandis, Alexion, Amarin, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichii Sankyo and Portola. He serves in the board of the TEA Stroke Study and of ESO. JF is consultant for Cerenovus, Medtronic, Microvention, Penumbra, Phenox, Roche and Tonbridge. He serves in the advisory board of Stryker and Phenox. He is stock holder of Tegus Medical, Eppdata and Vastrax. He serves as Associate Editor at JNIS.

Auteurs

Helge Kniep (H)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany H.kniep@uke.de.

Lukas Meyer (L)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Gabriel Broocks (G)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Tobias D Faizy (TD)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Matthias Bechstein (M)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Caspar Brekenfeld (C)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Fabian Flottmann (F)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Noel van Horn (N)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Vincent Geest (V)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Laurens Winkelmeier (L)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Anna Alegiani (A)

Department of Neurology, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Milani Deb-Chatterji (M)

Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Uta Hanning (U)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Goetz Thomalla (G)

Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Jens Fiehler (J)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Susanne Gellissen (S)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH