Table 2

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that were identified during the literature search

First Author
Year
Study typeResearch questionMain findingsN of studiesN with MeVO EVTNIHSS (median/mean)ASPECTS
(median/mean)
MeVO typeTechnique usedAngiographic outcomeClinical outcomesICH
Phan et al
201838
MAWhat are the reperfusion rates in M2 occlusions treated with SR vs DA?Both SR and DA are effective in recanalizing M2 occlusions. The literature is skewed by DA being performed sooner after onset of stroke compared with SR EVT.12835149Mostly M2SR (n=612) vs DA (n=223)TICI 2b/3: 81% (SR) vs 87% (DA)
TICI 3: 54% (SR) vs 57% (DA)
(I2=37%)
mRS 0–2: 60% (SR) vs 75% (DA) mRS 0–1: 40% (SR) vs 66% (DA)
(I2=52%)
6% (SR) vs 3% (DA)
(I2=0%)
Saber et al
201842
MAWhat are the angiographic results and functional outcome after M2 EVT and how do they compare to EVT for LVO?M2 EVT is technically feasible and safe with high functional independence. There may be a slightly increased risk of ICH.12108014M2SR, DATICI 2b/3: 81%
(I2=20%)
mRS 0–2: 59%
(I2=61%)
10%
(I2=75%)
Kim et al56
2019
MAWhat are the angiographic results and functional outcome after M2 EVT and how do they compare to EVT for M1 occlusions?M2 EVT is technically feasible. Further studies are needed to better characterize the effect of EVT in M2 occlusions.8650M2TICI 2b/3: 69%
(I2 not provided)
mRS 0–2: 59%
(I2 not provided)
6%
(I2 not provided)
Chen et al57
2017
SRWhat is the evidence for M2 EVT in the existing literature?M2 EVT results in high functional independence with modest ICH rates. But given the relatively favorable clinical course of M2 occlusions with conservative management, the benefits of EVT remain unclear.8630M2SR, DATICI 2b/3: 78%
(I2 not provided)
mRS 0–2: 63% mRS 0–1: 40%
(I2 not provided)
5%
(I2 not provided)
  • Note: MA = meta-analysis, SR = stent retriever, DA = direct aspiration, EVT = endovascular treatment, (s)ICH = (symptomatic) intracranial hemorrhage, TICI = Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction Score, mRS = modified Rankin Score,