Aspiration Thrombectomy Versus Stent Retriever Thrombectomy Alone for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods We queried online databases for original studies comparing aspiration thrombectomy with stent retriever thrombectomy in patients with AIS. After article selection, data were extracted on multiple baseline characteristics and prespecified endpoints. Dichotomous data were presented as risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs); continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. The data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on study type, site of occlusion, and age. Results We shortlisted nine relevant studies (n=1453 patients; n=690 receiving aspiration thrombectomy and n=763 receiving stent retriever thrombectomy). Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups in the rates of successful recanalization (RR: 0.96 [0.87, 1.06]; p=0.42), excellent functional outcome (RR: 0.90 [0.80, 1.01]; p=0.06), or procedure time (weighted mean difference (WMD): -5.39 minutes [-11.81, 1.04]; p=0.10). However, when removing the study by Nishi et al., sensitivity analysis resulted in a significant reduction in procedure time with aspiration (WMD: -11.01 [-15.54, -6.49]; p<0.0001). No significant difference was observed in safety outcomes, including all-cause mortality (RR: 0.82 [0.57, 1.19]; p=0.30), intracranial hemorrhage (RR: 0.93 [0.55, 1.59]; p=0.80), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR: 0.72[0.42, 1.21]; p=0.57), or embolization to new territory (RR: 0.71 [0.42, 1.19]; p=0.19). Subgroup analysis revealed that aspiration thrombectomy led to significantly better outcomes in patients with a mean age ≤65 (RR: 1.15 [1.03, 1.29]; p=0.001), and stent retriever thrombectomy led to increased recanalization success in patients with a mean age >65 (RR: 0.89 [0.80, 1.00]; p=0.05). Conclusions Our updated meta-analysis reveals that both aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy are comparably effective in the management of AIS. Shorter procedure times may potentially be attained with aspiration thrombectomy, and outcomes with each procedure may be age-dependent.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".