Tarchand, Ranita

Introduction Various clinical trials addressing large core acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are ongoing from multiple international groups. Future development of clinical guidelines depends on meta‐analyses of these trials calling for a degree of homogeneity of elements across the different studies. The aim of this common data element study was to provide an overview of the key features of pertinent large core infarct trials. Methods PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were screened for published and ongoing clinical trials assessing mechanical thrombectomy in patients with AIS with large core infarct. Nested Knowledge AutoLit living review platform was utilized to categorize primary and secondary outcomes as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection in the clinical trials. Results The most reported data element was ASPECTS score, but with varied definitions of what compromises large core. Non‐utility‐weighted modified Rankin Score (mRS) was reported in 6/7 studies as the primary outcome, while the utility‐weighted mRS was the outcome of interest in the TESLA trial, all of them at the 3‐months mark, with only LASTE looking for mRS shift at the 6‐months mark. Secondary outcomes had more variations. Mortality is reported separately only in 4/7 trials, all at the 3‐month mark. Additionally, the TENSION trial reports the frequency of serious adverse events, including mortality, at the 1‐week and 12‐month mark. Conclusions In the published and the ongoing large core trials, there is a large degree of variability in the collected data elements. Differences in definition and timepoints renders reaching a unified standard difficult, which hinders high quality meta‐analyses and cohesive evidence‐driven synthesis.

Aim: Stent-retriever (SR) thrombectomy has demonstrated superior outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke compared with medical management alone, but differences among SRs remain unexplored. We conducted a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes between three SRs: EmboTrap ® , Solitaire™, and Trevo ® . Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant Systematic Review among English-language studies published after 2014 in PubMed/MEDLINE that reported SRs in ≥25 patients. Functional and safety outcomes included 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS 0-2), mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and embolization to new territory (ENT). Recanalization outcomes included modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) and first-pass recanalization (FPR). We used a random effects Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes; subgroup and outlier-influencer analysis were performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: Fifty-one articles comprising 9,804 patients were included. EmboTrap had statistically significantly higher rates of mRS 0-2 (57.4%) compared with Trevo (50.0%, p = 0.013) and Solitaire (45.3%, p < 0.001). Compared with Solitaire (20.4%), EmboTrap (11.2%, p < 0.001) and Trevo (14.5%, p = 0.018) had statistically significantly lower mortality. Compared with Solitaire (7.7%), EmboTrap (3.9%, p = 0.028) and Trevo (4.6%, p = 0.049) had statistically significantly lower rates of sICH. There were no significant differences in ENT rates across all three devices (6.0% for EmboTrap, 5.3% for Trevo, and 7.7% for Solitaire, p = 0.518). EmboTrap had numerically higher rates of recanalization; however, no statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: The results of our Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis suggest that EmboTrap may be associated with significantly improved functional outcomes compared with Solitaire and Trevo. EmboTrap and Trevo may be associated with significantly lower rates of sICH and mortality compared with Solitaire. No significant differences in recanalization and ENT rates were found. These conclusions are tempered by limitations of the analysis including variations in thrombectomy techniques in the field, highlighting the need for multi-arm RCT studies comparing different SR devices to confirm our findings.