Table 10

Summary of findings for the comparison of first-line ADAPT with first-line stent retriever

Certainty assessmentNo of patientsEffectQuality of evidenceImportance
No of studiesStudy designRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsFirst-line ADAPTFirst-line stent retrieverRelative
(95% CI)
Absolute
(95% CI)
mRS score 0–2
 2Randomized trialsSerious*Not seriousSerious†Not seriousNone152/315 (48.3%)158/318 (49.7%) RR=0.97
(0.83 to 1.14)
OR=0.94 (0.69 to 1.29)
15 fewer per 1 000
(from 70 more to 84 fewer)
⨁⨁◯◯
LOW
CRITICAL
mTICI 2b–3
 2Randomized trialsSerious*Not seriousSerious†Not seriousNone286/325 (88.0%)278/325 (85.5%) RR=1.03
(0.97 to 1.09)
OR=1.25 (0.79 to 1.97)
26 more per 1 000
(from 26 fewer to 77 more)
⨁⨁◯◯
LOW
CRITICAL
  • *ASTER was not designed or powered to demonstrate non-inferiority.

  • †Rescue therapy with another type of device was allowed in both trials.

  • ADAPT, a direct aspiration first pass technique; CI, confidence interval; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; RR, risk ratio; mTICI, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction.