Operator assessment versus core laboratory adjudication of recanalization following endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Successful recanalization after endovascular thrombectomy serves as the primary endpoint in clinical trials and is a crucial predictor of long-term outcomes. Radiographic outcomes for various interventions have been shown to vary based on the type of interpreter, including the site interventionalist compared with an independent reader. To compare angiographic outcomes in stroke thrombectomy procedures based on the type of reader. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web-of-Science through February 2022. We included primary studies that reported core laboratory-read and operator angiographic outcomes after mechanical thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. Furthermore, study-defined successful recanalization data were collected. Eight studies were included with 4797 patients, 51.2% of whom were male. Four thousand, four hundred and thirty-one patients had core readings, and 4211 had operator readings. Study-defined successful recanalization was significantly higher for operator (84%, 3543/4211) examinations than for core laboratory-read (78.4%, 3476/4431) examinations (p<0.001; OR=1.462, 95% CI 1.175 to 1.819). The modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) scale score of ≥2 b was higher for operator (85%, 3341/3929) examinations than for core laboratory-read (78.6%, 3107/3952) examinations (p<0.001; OR=1.349, 95% CI 1.071 to 1.701). mTICI 3 was significantly higher for operator (54.6%, 1000/1832) examinations than for core laboratory-read (39.9%, 731/1832) examinations (p<0.001; OR=1.823, 95% CI 1.598 to 2.081). Operator angiographic reads are statistically significantly higher than core laboratory-read readings following stroke thrombectomy, especially for complete recanalization. These differences should be considered when interpreting reports of angiographic outcomes after thrombectomy.