Background: The direct aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) is a recent endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion that has been gaining popularity due to the rapidity of the technique and the potential for cost savings in comparison to standard thrombectomy methods such as stent retrievers. However, few studies have directly compared these 2.
Objective: To compare ADAPT with stent retrievers for thrombectomy via systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods: Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness limited to English through September 2016 were systematically searched. Eligible studies included those in which patient cohorts underwent ADAPT for acute stroke. Recanalization efficiency, clinical outcomes, and complication rates of ADAPT were compared with the current standard of endovascular thrombectomy techniques.
Results: Seventeen studies on ADAPT and 5 randomized controlled trials on endovascular therapy were included. ADAPT achieved higher rates of complete revascularisation (89.4% vs 71.7%, P < .001) but similar clinical outcomes compared to front-line endovascular therapy. Seventy-one point four percent of ADAPT cases were successfully recanalized with aspiration alone, and a trend towards reduced time from groin puncture to recanalization time was noted (44.77 vs 61.46 min, P = .088).
Conclusion: The pooled results are comparable with recent randomized studies that demonstrate the benefit of endovascular therapy over intra-arterial medical therapy. Future direct comparative studies and randomized trials are required to confirm the benefit of the ADAPT strategy compared to standard endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke.