Samaniego, E

Background Randomized trials have shown equivocal outcomes between a direct aspiration as first-pass technique (ADAPT) and stent retriever (SR) stroke thrombectomy, yet whether specific patient subgroups benefit differentially from one technique over the other remains unknown. Methods In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, patients with large vessel occlusion were included, and those who underwent ADAPT versus SR first-pass thrombectomy (either as standalone or combined with aspiration) were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of first-pass effect (FPE, modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2c or better with one attempt) with no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). A causal forest model was used to estimate the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) for each patient, with larger CATEs indicating that ADAPT is expected to be more advantageous. Patients were stratified by CATEs, and outcomes were compared between treatment groups. Results Among 6700 included patients, ADAPT (n=3695, 55%) was associated with a higher rate of FPE with no sICH (39.9% vs 26.9%; adjusted OR (aOR) 2.07, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.41, P<0.001). The causal forest identified significant treatment effect heterogeneity (interaction P<0.001), where ADAPT was more advantageous in more recent years and among patients with M1 occlusions presenting in earlier time windows. Low-CATE patients showed no statistically significant difference between techniques (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.45, P=0.70), while medium- and high-CATE patients demonstrated progressively larger ADAPT advantages (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.55, and aOR 2.99, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.98, respectively, both P<0.001). Conclusions ADAPT may be superior to SR for a majority of patients, particularly in recent years, and among patients with M1 occlusions presenting in earlier time windows.

Background The middle meningeal artery (MMA) has emerged as an endovascular route for treating chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), meningioma, and refractory headaches. The third ARISE roundtable convened experts from neurology, neurosurgery, neuroradiology, industry, and regulatory agencies to develop consensus guidance on current evidence for MMA-based therapies Methods Over 50 experts participated in a multi-stakeholder discussion. Evidence from randomized and observational studies, early-phase interventional series, and preclinical work was reviewed. Breakout groups focused on four domains: (1) MMA embolization (MMAE) for CSDH, (2) preoperative embolization of meningiomas, (3) MMA-targeted therapies for headache, and (4) transvascular access for endovascular drainage of subdural hematomas. Consensus recommendations were developed by a writing committee Results Randomized trials support MMAE as an adjunct to surgery or medical management for selected patients with non-acute, symptomatic CSDH to reduce recurrence, progression, and reoperation. Evidence remains insufficient to support MMAE for acute or asymptomatic subdural hematomas. For meningioma, observational data suggest that preoperative embolization in experienced centers can reduce blood loss and operative time and may delay recurrence in large, hypervascular tumors with predominant dural or external carotid supply; primary embolization and intra-arterial oncologic therapies remain investigational. Early series of MMA-directed lidocaine infusion for refractory migraine, status migrainosus, and post-subarachnoid hemorrhage headache show short-term benefit, highlighting the need for controlled trials. Preclinical and first-in-human studies of combined MMAE and transvascular drainage for CSDH demonstrate high technical success, rapid radiographic and clinical improvement, and no early recurrences Conclusion The MMA represents a vascular pathway for an expanding spectrum of neurointerventional therapies.