Search

BackgroundPrevious studies comparing a direct aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) and stent retrievers have inconsistent methodologies and data reporting, limiting the ability to accurately assimilate data from different studies that would inform treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review to discuss and compare the findings of all relevant meta-analysis studies comparing the efficacy of the ADAPT and stent retriever techniques.MethodsThe study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), where meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of the ADAPT technique and stent retrievers in the treatment of AIS were included. We extracted all relevant data from the included studies and assessed the quality of the included meta-analyses using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2).ResultsSeven relevant studies met our inclusion criteria and were suitable for the qualitative synthesis. All included studies obtained data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational investigations (including levels II, III, and IV). At the same time, none of them used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for quality assessment. In accordance with AMSTAR-2, two studies were rated ‘high’, while the other five were rated ‘moderate’.ConclusionsPresent evidence is insufficient to clarify the superiority of one modality over the other. Further RCTs on this comparison must be conducted prior to designing further meta-analyses or making conclusive interpretations. Procedure duration and cost should be taken into consideration for any future studies.

Cross study heterogeneity has limited the evidence based evaluation of middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) as a treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Ongoing trials and prospective studies suggest that heterogeneity in upcoming publications may detract from subsequent meta-analyses and systemic reviews. This study aims to describe this data heterogeneity to promote harmonization with common data elements (CDEs) in publications. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were searched for published or ongoing prospective trials of MMAE. The Nested Knowledge AutoLit living review platform was utilized to classify endpoints from randomized control trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing MMAE with other treatments. The qualitative synthesis feature was used to determine cross study overlap of outcome related data elements. Eighteen studies were included: 12 RCTs, two non-randomized controlled studies, two prospective single arm trials, one combined prospective and retrospective controlled study, and one prospective cohort study. The most commonly reported data element was recurrence (15/18), but seven heterogenous (non-comparable) definitions were used for ‘recurrence’. Mortality was reported in 10/18 studies, but no common timepoint was reported in more than four studies. Re-intervention and CSDH volume were reported in eight studies, CSDH width in seven, and no other outcome was common across more than five studies. There was significant heterogeneity in data element collection even among prospective registered trials of MMAE. Even among CDEs, variation in definition and timepoints prevented harmonization. A standardized approach based on CDEs may be necessary to facilitate future meta-analyses and evidence driven evaluation of MMAE treatment of CSDH.