Aspiration Versus Stent‐Retriever as First‐Line Endovascular Therapy Technique for Primary Medium and Distal Intracranial Occlusions: A Propensity‐Score Matched Multicenter Analysis

Background For acute proximal intracranial artery occlusions, contact aspiration may be more effective than stent‐retriever for first‐line reperfusion therapy. Due to the lack of data regarding medium vessel occlusion thrombectomy, we evaluated outcomes according to first‐line technique in a large, multicenter registry. Methods Imaging, procedural, and clinical outcomes of patients with acute proximal medium vessel occlusions (M2, A1, or P1) or distal medium vessel occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or further) treated at 37 sites in 10 countries were analyzed according to first‐line endovascular technique (stent‐retriever versus aspiration). Multivariable logistic regression and propensity‐score matching were used to estimate the odds of the primary outcome, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b–3 (“successful recanalization”), as well as secondary outcomes (first‐pass effect, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2c‐3, intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90‐day modified Rankin scale, 90‐day mortality) between treatment groups. Results Of the 440 included patients (44.5% stent‐retriever versus 55.5% aspiration), those treated with stent‐retriever had lower baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scale scores (median 8 versus 9; P<0.01), higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (median 13 versus 11; P=0.02), and nonsignificantly fewer medium‐distal occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or other: 17.4% versus 23.8%; P=0.10). Use of a stent‐retriever was associated with 15% lower odds of successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; [95% CI 0.74–0.98]; P=0.02), but this was not significant after multivariable adjustment in the total cohort (adjusted OR, 0.88; [95% CI 0.72–1.09]; P=0.24), or in the propensity‐score matched cohort (n=105 in each group) (adjusted OR, 0.94; [95% CI 0.75–1.18]; P=0.60). There was no significant association between technique and secondary outcomes in the propensity‐score matched adjusted models. Conclusion In this large, diverse, multinational medium vessel occlusion cohort, we found no significant difference in imaging or clinical outcomes with aspiration versus stent‐retriever thrombectomy

Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection: The STOP-CAD Study.

Background: Small, randomized trials of cervical artery dissection (CAD) patients showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with CAD treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. Methods: This is a multi-center observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included CAD patients without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets) and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an "as treated" cross-over approach and only included outcomes occurring on the above treatments. Results: The study included 3,636 patients [402 (11.1%) received exclusively anticoagulation and 2,453 (67.5%) received exclusively antiplatelets]. By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with IPTW, compared to antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a non-significantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted HR 0.71 95% CI 0.45-1.12, p=0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR 0.80 95% CI 0.28-2.24, p=0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR 1.39 95% CI 0.35-5.45, p=0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR 5.56 95% CI 1.53-20.13, p=0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR 0.40 95% CI 0.18-0.88) (Pinteraction=0.009). Conclusions: Our study does not rule out a benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings