Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626624›Full record

ArticleCureus2020

Aspiration Thrombectomy Versus Stent Retriever Thrombectomy Alone for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Marium Zafar, Muhammad Mussa, Roha S Memon, Shahrukh Nadeem, Muhammad S Usman, Javed Siddiqi, Alexander Norbash, Faisal Khosa, Vincent M Figueredo, Richard Krasuski and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Contact Aspiration Alone or Combined With Stent Retriever Thrombectomy for Middle Cerebral Artery Large Vessel Occlusion.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marium ZafarInternal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Pakistan, Karachi, PAK.
Muhammad MussaInternal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, PAK.
Roha S MemonInternal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, PAK.
Shahrukh NadeemMedicine, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, PAK.
Muhammad S UsmanInternal Medicine, Civil Hospital Karachi, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, PAK.
Javed SiddiqiNeurosurgery, Desert Regional Medical Center, Palm Springs, USA.
Alexander NorbashRadiology, Neuroradiology, Interventional Radiology, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Faisal KhosaRadiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CAN.
Vincent M FigueredoCardiovascular Diseases, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, USA.
Richard KrasuskiCardiovascular Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, USA.
Muhammad S KhanInternal Medicine, John H Stroger J. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, USA.
Desert Regional Medical Center · USDow University of Health Sciences · PKEinstein Medical Center Philadelphia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods We queried online databases for original studies comparing aspiration thrombectomy with stent retriever thrombectomy in patients with AIS. After article selection, data were extracted on multiple baseline characteristics and prespecified endpoints. Dichotomous data were presented as risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs); continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. The data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on study type, site of occlusion, and age. Results We shortlisted nine relevant studies (n=1453 patients; n=690 receiving aspiration thrombectomy and n=763 receiving stent retriever thrombectomy). Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups in the rates of successful recanalization (RR: 0.96 [0.87, 1.06]; p=0.42), excellent functional outcome (RR: 0.90 [0.80, 1.01]; p=0.06), or procedure time (weighted mean difference (WMD): -5.39 minutes [-11.81, 1.04]; p=0.10). However, when removing the study by Nishi et al., sensitivity analysis resulted in a significant reduction in procedure time with aspiration (WMD: -11.01 [-15.54, -6.49]; p<0.0001). No significant difference was observed in safety outcomes, including all-cause mortality (RR: 0.82 [0.57, 1.19]; p=0.30), intracranial hemorrhage (RR: 0.93 [0.55, 1.59]; p=0.80), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR: 0.72[0.42, 1.21]; p=0.57), or embolization to new territory (RR: 0.71 [0.42, 1.19]; p=0.19). Subgroup analysis revealed that aspiration thrombectomy led to significantly better outcomes in patients with a mean age ≤65 (RR: 1.15 [1.03, 1.29]; p=0.001), and stent retriever thrombectomy led to increased recanalization success in patients with a mean age >65 (RR: 0.89 [0.80, 1.00]; p=0.05). Conclusions Our updated meta-analysis reveals that both aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy are comparably effective in the management of AIS. Shorter procedure times may potentially be attained with aspiration thrombectomy, and outcomes with each procedure may be age-dependent.

Indexed as

acute ischemic strokeadaptaspiration thrombectomystent retriever thrombectomy

Identifiers

PMID32626624
PMCPMC7328696
OpenAlexW3029172056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.