Hamouda, A. M.

Introduction Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a well‐established treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, its role in cervical artery dissection‐related (CeAD) LVO remains debated due to anatomical complexities and procedural challenges. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of MT in patients with AIS due to CeAD‐related LVO, compared with other AIS etiologies. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception through March 2025. Comparative observational studies evaluating the use of MT in adult patients with AIS due to LVO were included, specifically those comparing outcomes in those with CeAD versus non‐CeAD etiologies. Most studies were retrospective and multicentric. Eligible interventions included stent retriever thrombectomy, direct aspiration (ADAPT), or combined approaches. Results Nine studies with a total of 4889 patients were included, comprising 446 CeAD‐related and 4443 non‐CeAD LVO cases. MT for CeAD‐related AIS showed no statistically significant difference in successful recanalization compared with non‐CeAD cases (OR:0.81, CI: [0.63,1.04], p=0.10). However, CeAD patients had significantly higher rates of 90‐day functional independence (mRS 0‐2) (OR:2.17, CI: [1.55, 3.05], p < 0.0001) and lower 90‐day mortality (OR:0.34, CI: [0.22, 0.53], p < 0.0001). Rates of distal embolization (OR:1.60, CI: [0.69, 3.70], p = 0.27), symptomatic ICH (OR:0.84, CI: [0.51, 1.38], p=0.49), or iatrogenic dissection (OR:1.58, CI: [0.59, 4.22], p=0.36) did not differ significantly. Conclusions Mechanical thrombectomy in CeAD‐related LVO is safe and associated with clinical outcomes comparable to patients with non‐CeAD acute ischemic causes. They demonstrated a similar patient safety profile, such as functional outcomes and mortality.

Introduction For large vessel occlusion (LVO) ischemic strokes, three major techniques of mechanical thrombectomy have demonstrated efficacy. In this study, we compared stent retrievers (SR),contact aspiration (Asp), and a combined approach to provide an updated comparison of key outcomes for each strategy. Methods We followed PRISMA guidelines to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis across PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to September 2024. Studies were included if they included outcomes for patients with ischemic stroke who underwent mechanical thrombectomy using a stent retriever, contact aspiration, or a combination of both techniques. Results Twenty‐four studies comprising a total of 12,845 patients were included in the analysis. Compared to the Asp technique alone, the combined mechanical thrombectomy (MT) approach was associated with a higher risk of arterial dissection (RR: 2.00; 95% CI [1.15, 3.44]), longer procedure duration (MD: 13.35 minutes; 95% CI [5.87, 20.83]) and associated with a lower risk of arterial dissection (RR: 0.50; 95% CI [0.29, 0.87]). However, Asp was associated with a lower rate of first‐pass effect (FPE) compared to combined MT (RR: 0.67; 95% CI [0.46, 0.96]). Additionally, stent retriever (SR) use was linked to a higher procedure duration compared to Asp(MD: 13.39 minutes; 95% CI [5.55, 21.22]) and a lower FPE rate (RR: 0.75; 95% CI [0.59,0.96]). No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of successful recanalization, 90‐day functional outcomes, or mortality. Conclusion In our analysis, all three techniques demonstrated similar recanalization rates and functional outcomes. However, aspiration was associated with shorter procedure times and fewer arterialdis section complications, while the combination technique showed a higher first pass effect. 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.