Aims Endovascular therapy (EVT) for distal medium vessel occlusions (DMVOs) is a potential frontier of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment, but its efficacy against best medical therapy (BMT) remains unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of EVT versus BMT in primary DMVO.
Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase, from inception to August 14, 2022, for studies comparing EVT with BMT in DMVO-AIS. We adopted the Distal Thrombectomy Summit Group’s definition of DMVO. Efficacy outcomes were functional independence (90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–2) and excellent functional outcomes (90-day mRS 0–1). Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day mortality.
Results Fourteen observational and two randomized-controlled studies were included, with 1202 patients receiving EVT and 1267 receiving BMT. After trim-and-fill correction, EVT achieved significantly better odds of functional independence than BMT (adjusted OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.43). There were no significant differences in overall excellent functional outcomes (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.71), sICH (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.66), and mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.45). Stratified by EVT method, mechanical thrombectomy±intra-arterial thrombolysis achieved more excellent functional outcomes than BMT (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.23). In mild strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score <6), EVT caused significantly more sICH (OR 6.30, 95% CI 1.55 to 25.64).
Conclusions EVT shows promising efficacy benefit over BMT for primary DMVO-AIS. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EVT in DMVO-AIS.
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
BYT and LLY are joint senior authors.
Contributors EDWL, KZXT and GYRK were responsible for the literature search, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and drafting of the manuscript. BYQT and LLLY contributed equally to the conception, design and supervision of the study. All authors contributed to analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content, and have read and approved the final submitted manuscript. LLLY is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.
Funding BYQT was supported by the MOH Healthcare Research Scholarship, National Medical Research Council, Singapore. LLLY was supported by the National Medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/MOH-TA91Nov-0003).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.