Safety and Effectiveness of the New Generation APERIO® Hybrid Stent-retriever Device in Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke.

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether technological advancement of stent-retriever devices influences typical observational indicators of safety or effectiveness.

METHODS

Observational retrospective study of APERIO® (AP) vs. new generation APERIO® Hybrid (APH) (Acandis®, Pforzheim, Germany) stent-retriever device (01/2019-09/2020) for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. Primary effectiveness endpoint was successful recanalization eTICI (expanded Thrombolysis In Cerebral Ischemia) ≥ 2b67, primary safety endpoint was occurrence of hemorrhagic complications after MT. Secondary outcome measures were time from groin puncture to first pass and successful reperfusion, and the total number of passes needed to achieve the final recanalization result.

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients with LVO stroke who were treated by MT matched the inclusion criteria: 148 patients (49.7%) treated with AP vs. 150 patients (50.3%) treated with new generation APH. Successful recanalization was not statistically different between both groups: 75.7% for AP vs. 79.3% for APH; p = 0.450. Postinterventional hemorrhagic complications and particularly subarachnoid hemorrhage as the entity possibly associated with stent-retriever device type was significantly less frequent in the group treated with the APH: 29.7% for AP and 16.0% for APH; p = 0.005; however, rates of symptomatic hemorrhage with clinical deterioration and in domo mortality were not statistically different. Neither the median number of stent-retriever passages needed to achieve final recanalization, time from groin puncture to first pass, time from groin puncture to final recanalization nor the number of cases in which successful recanalization could only be achieved by using a different stent-retriever as bail-out device differed between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In the specific example of the APERIO® stent-retriever device, we observed that further technological developments of the new generation device were not associated with disadvantages with respect to typical observational indicators of safety or effectiveness.