Search

Background Acute ischemic stroke arising from medium vessel occlusions (MeVO) poses substantial challenges in treatment and management. This study aims to elucidate the outcomes and factors contributing to achieving excellent recanalization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] 2c–3) versus successful recanalization (mTICI 2b) in patients with MeVO stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods We conducted a multinational study analyzing data from the MAD‐MT (Multicenter Analysis of Distal Medium Vessel Occlusions: Effect of Mechanical Thrombectomy) registry, encompassing 37 centers across North America, Asia, and Europe, collected between September 2017 and July 2023. The study included acute ischemic stroke patients with MeVO treated with MT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis, who achieved mTICI 2b–3 post‐MT. Results Among 1463 patients with successful recanalization (mTICI 2b–3), 523 achieved mTICI 2b recanalization, and 940 achieved mTICI 2c–3. Distal occlusions exhibited higher odds of excellent recanalization compared with proximal MeVO vessel occlusions (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17–2.15; P = 0.003). Cardioembolic stroke pathogenesis was associated with a higher likelihood of excellent recanalization (1.67; 95% CI, 1.07–2.59; P = 0.018). Patients achieving mTICI 2c–3 recanalization demonstrated lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores, significant improvements in postprocedural National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale shift, and a higher percentage of favorable 90‐day outcomes compared with those with mTICI 2b. However, no significant difference in 90‐day mortality rates was observed. Conclusion This study underscores that among patients with MeVO stroke with successful recanalization (mTICI 2b–3) there is higher likelihood of achieving excellent recanalization (mTICI 2c–3) in distal occlusions and cardioembolic pathogenesis. mTICI 2c–3 scores post‐MT correlate with improved clinical outcomes compared with mTICI 2b, affirming the superiority of excellent recanalization over successful recanalization in patients with MeVO stroke. Further prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are warranted for validation.

Purpose: Medium vessel occlusions (MeVOs) can be challenging to detect on imaging. Multiphase computed tomography angiography (mCTA) has been shown to improve large vessel occlusion (LVO) detection and endovascular treatment (EVT) selection. The aims of this study were to determine if mCTA-derived tissue maps can (1) accurately detect MeVOs and (2) predict infarction on 24-h follow-up imaging with comparable accuracy to CT perfusion (CTP). Methods: Two readers assessed mCTA tissue maps of 116 ischemic stroke patients (58 MeVOs, 58 non-MeVOs) and determined by consensus: (1) MeVO (yes/no) and (2) occlusion site, blinded to clinical or imaging data. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for MeVO detection were estimated in comparison to reference standards of (1) expert readings of baseline mCTA and (2) CTP maps. Volumetric and spatial agreement between mCTA- and CTP-predicted infarcts was assessed using concordance/intraclass correlation and Dice coefficients. Interrater agreement for MeVO detection on mCTA tissue maps was estimated with Cohen's kappa. Results: MeVO detection from mCTA-derived tissue maps had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI: 80–97), specificity of 82% (95% CI: 70–90), and AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80–0.93) compared to expert reads of baseline mCTA. Interrater reliability was good (0.72, 95% CI: 0.60–0.85). Compared to CTP maps, sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 75–95), specificity was 78% (95%CI: 65–88), and AUC was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76–0.90). The mean difference between mCTA- and CTP-predicted final infarct volume was 4.8 mL (limits of agreement: − 58.5 to 68.1) with a Dice coefficient of 33.5%. Conclusion: mCTA tissue maps can be used to reliably detect MeVO stroke and predict tissue fate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endovascular treatment (EVT) for stroke due to medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) can be technically challenging. Devices and tools are rapidly evolving. We aimed to gain insight into preferences and global perspectives on the usage of endovascular tools in treating MeVOs.Methods: We conducted an international survey with seven scenarios of patients presenting A3, M2/3, M3, M3/4, or P2/3 occlusions. Respondents were asked for their preferred first-line endovascular approach, and whether they felt that the appropriate endovascular tools were available to them. Answers were analyzed by occlusion location and geographical region of practice, using multinomial/binary logistic regression.Results: A total of 263 neurointerventionists provided 1836 responses. The first-line preferences of physicians were evenly distributed among stent-retrievers, combined approaches, and aspiration only (33.2, 29.8, and 26.8%, respectively). A3 occlusions were more often treated with stent-retrievers (RR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07–1.36), while intra-arterial thrombolysis was more often preferred in M3 (RR 2.47, 95% CI: 1.53–3.98) and M3/4 occlusions (RR 7.71, 95% CI: 4.16–14.28) compared to M2/3 occlusions. Respondents who thought appropriate tools are currently not available more often chose stent retrievers alone (RR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.01–4.24) or intra-arterial thrombolysis (RR 3.35, 95% CI: 1.26–8.42). Physicians who stated that they do not have access to optimal tools opted more often not to treat at all (RR 3.41, 95% CI: 1.11–10.49). Stent-retrievers alone were chosen more often and contact aspiration alone less often as a first-line approach in Europe (RR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.38–3.24; and RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34–0.70, respectively) compared to the United States and Canada.Conclusions: In EVT for MeVO strokes, neurointerventionalists choose a targeted vessel specific first-line approach depending on the occlusion location, region of practice, and availability of the appropriate tools.

Background: Endovascular treatment (EVT) for stroke due to medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) can be technically challenging. Devices and tools are rapidly evolving. We aimed to gain insight into preferences and global perspectives on the usage of endovascular tools in treating MeVOs. Methods: We conducted an international survey with seven scenarios of patients presenting A3, M2/3, M3, M3/4, or P2/3 occlusions. Respondents were asked for their preferred first-line endovascular approach, and whether they felt that the appropriate endovascular tools were available to them. Answers were analyzed by occlusion location and geographical region of practice, using multinomial/binary logistic regression. Results: A total of 263 neurointerventionists provided 1836 responses. The first-line preferences of physicians were evenly distributed among stent-retrievers, combined approaches, and aspiration only (33.2, 29.8, and 26.8%, respectively). A3 occlusions were more often treated with stent-retrievers (RR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07–1.36), while intra-arterial thrombolysis was more often preferred in M3 (RR 2.47, 95% CI: 1.53–3.98) and M3/4 occlusions (RR 7.71, 95% CI: 4.16–14.28) compared to M2/3 occlusions. Respondents who thought appropriate tools are currently not available more often chose stent retrievers alone (RR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.01–4.24) or intra-arterial thrombolysis (RR 3.35, 95% CI: 1.26–8.42). Physicians who stated that they do not have access to optimal tools opted more often not to treat at all (RR 3.41, 95% CI: 1.11–10.49). Stent-retrievers alone were chosen more often and contact aspiration alone less often as a first-line approach in Europe (RR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.38–3.24; and RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34–0.70, respectively) compared to the United States and Canada. Conclusions: In EVT for MeVO strokes, neurointerventionalists choose a targeted vessel specific first-line approach depending on the occlusion location, region of practice, and availability of the appropriate tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]