Contact Aspiration Alone or Combined With Stent Retriever Thrombectomy for Middle Cerebral Artery Large Vessel Occlusion.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The effectiveness of a large-bore aspiration catheter for contact aspiration (CA) thrombectomy is compared to the combined use of an aspiration catheter and a stent retriever (CA+SR) for large vessel occlusion (LVO). We assessed the efficacy and safety of CA alone versus CA+SR as first-line treatment for middle cerebral artery (MCA) LVO in daily practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from the SARA-3 registry of patients with MCA occlusion (M1 and M2 segments), dividing them into two groups: first-line CA alone and combined CA+SR. Demographic, clinical, angiographic, and clinical outcomes (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score at 24 h and modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score at 3 months) were compared.

RESULTS

Of 551 patients, 348 (63.8%) received CA alone and 203 (36.8%) received CA+SR. The groin-to-reperfusion time was significantly shorter in the CA-alone group than in the combined CA+SR group (median, 26 vs. 40 min, p < 0.001). The CA group demonstrated higher first-pass modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 3 recanalization rates (47% vs. 37%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.5 [confidence interval 1-2.1], p = 0.042), a higher final mTICI 3 rate (65% vs. 56%; OR 1.5 [1-2.2], p = 0.037), and fewer new territory embolisms (0.9% vs. 3.9%; OR 0.2 [0-0.8], p = 0.028) compared to the CA+SR group. The CA-alone group had better functional outcomes at 3 months (mRS ≤ 2, 77% vs. 63%; OR 1.9 [1.3-3], p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

CA alone outperformed CA+SR as a first-line treatment for MCA LVO, yielding higher first-pass and final recanalization rates, lower new territory embolism risk, shorter procedure times, and better functional outcomes at 3 months.