Outcomes of combined mechanical thrombectomy versus stent retriever or contact aspiration in acute ischemic stroke: an updated network meta-analysis.

Abstract

For large vessel occlusion (LVO) ischemic strokes, three major techniques of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) have demonstrated efficacy. Here we compare the safety and efficacy of stent retrievers (SR), contact aspiration (Asp), and a combined mechanical thrombectomy (cMT) for LVO ischemic stroke. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we queried the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published prior to December 2024 describing patients with ischemic stroke who underwent MT using SR, Asp, or cMT. Twnety-four studies comprising a total of 12 845 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with cMT, Asp was associated with a lower rate of first pass effect (FPE) (risk ratio (RR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96), shorter procedure duration (mean difference (MD) -13.35 min; 95% CI -20.83 to -5.87), and lower risk of arterial dissection (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87). Additionally, SR use was linked to a higher procedure duration compared with Asp (MD 13.39 min; 95% CI 5.55 to 21.22) and a lower symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of number of passes, successful recanalization, 90-day functional outcomes, mortality, arterial perforation, or embolization to new territory. All three techniques demonstrated similar recanalization rates and functional outcomes. However, Asp was associated with shorter procedure times and fewer arterial dissection complications, while cMT showed a higher FPE. Given the comparable overall efficacy, the choice of technique should be guided by the physician's preference, expertise, and confidence, tailored to the individual patient's profile.