Kendall, Nicholas

Background For large vessel occlusion (LVO) ischemic strokes, three major techniques of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) have demonstrated efficacy. Here we compare the safety and efficacy of stent retrievers (SR), contact aspiration (Asp), and a combined mechanical thrombectomy (cMT) for LVO ischemic stroke. Methods Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we queried the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published prior to December 2024 describing patients with ischemic stroke who underwent MT using SR, Asp, or cMT. Results Twnety-four studies comprising a total of 12 845 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with cMT, Asp was associated with a lower rate of first pass effect (FPE) (risk ratio (RR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96), shorter procedure duration (mean difference (MD) −13.35 min; 95% CI −20.83 to –5.87), and lower risk of arterial dissection (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87). Additionally, SR use was linked to a higher procedure duration compared with Asp (MD 13.39 min; 95% CI 5.55 to 21.22) and a lower symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of number of passes, successful recanalization, 90-day functional outcomes, mortality, arterial perforation, or embolization to new territory. Conclusions All three techniques demonstrated similar recanalization rates and functional outcomes. However, Asp was associated with shorter procedure times and fewer arterial dissection complications, while cMT showed a higher FPE. 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.

Central nervous system (CNS) tumors are the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in children, with prognosis remaining dismal for some of these malignancies. Though the past two decades have seen advancements in surgery, radiation, and targeted therapy, major unresolved hurdles continue to undermine the therapeutic efficacy. These include challenges in suboptimal drug delivery through the blood–brain barrier (BBB), marked intra-tumoral molecular heterogeneity, and the elusive tumor microenvironment. Drug repurposing or re-tasking FDA-approved drugs with evidence of penetration into the CNS, using newer methods of intracranial drug delivery facilitating optimal drug exposure, has been an area of intense research. This could be a valuable tool, as most of these agents have already gone through the lengthy process of drug development and the evaluation of safety risks and the optimal pharmacokinetic profile. They can now be used and tested in clinics with an accelerated and different approach. Conclusions: The next-generation therapeutic strategy should prioritize repurposing oncologic and non-oncologic drugs that have been used for other indication, and have demonstrated robust preclinical activity against pediatric brain tumors. In combination with novel drug delivery techniques, these drugs could hold significant therapeutic promise in pediatric neurooncology.