Contact Aspiration versus Stent-Retriever Thrombectomy for Distal Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusions in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The evidence for endovascular therapy and choice of technique in distal middle cerebral artery (MCA) M2 segment occlusions in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis primarily comparing reperfusion rates of stent-retrieval versus contact aspiration for M2 occlusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study selection included cohorts of patients with distal MCA occlusions in acute ischemic strokes treated with an endovascular approach including stent-retrieval or contact aspiration. Twelve studies were selected for meta-analysis for a total of 835 cases. Meta-analysis by proportions was conducted on parameters including baseline and procedural characteristics, thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b-3 outcomes, and 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) outcomes. RESULTS: Hypertension and hyperlipidemia were more prevalent in stent-retriever patients. Pooled baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores and Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score imaging scores were similar. Pooled time onset of symptoms to door arrival was higher for the stent-retrieval group (154 vs. 97.4 minutes, P=0.01), as was time to groin puncture (259.9 vs. 156.2 minutes, P=0.02), but there was no difference in procedure time. The TICI 2b-3 recanalization rate was similar (80.5% vs. 86.8%, P=0.168). The frequency of mRS 0-2 at 90-day was also similar (74.5% vs. 59.9%, P=0.120), and an excellent mRS 0-1 was lower for stent-retrievers (39.9% vs. 65.6%, P=0.003). A significant negative correlation was found between onset to groin puncture time and the proportion of patients with a good mRS (r=-0.71, P=0.048). CONCLUSION: Both endovascular techniques achieved recanalization rates greater than 80% and 90-day outcomes of minimal disability with similar complication rates. The literature is skewed by aspiration cases being performed sooner after onset of stroke compared to stent-retriever cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".