To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The benefit of endovascular treatment (EVT) in acute ischemic strokes (AIS) due to medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) remains unclear, as recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown neutral results. This meta-analysis examines the pooled efficacy and safety of EVT in MeVO.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of two RCTs (DISTAL and ESCAPE-MeVO) involving 1073 participants was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The primary outcome was the risk ratios (RR) of excellent functional outcome, defined as modified Rankin score (mRS) 0–1 at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mRS 0–2 and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH).
Results:
The RR implied no significant difference between the two treatment arms; for the primary efficacy outcome, RR (mRS 0–1) was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.81–1.10; I2 = 0%), and for the secondary efficacy outcome, RR (mRS 0–2) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.88–0.09; I2 = 10%). The EVT + best medical treatment (BMT) arm demonstrated a higher risk of sICH (RR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.26–4.53; I2 = 0%) and serious adverse events (SAE) (RR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11–1.56; I2 = 0%), while mortality at 90 days (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.94–1.76; I2 = 16%) showed no significant difference.
Conclusions:
Our study showed that, in patients with AIS due to MeVO, EVT did not lead to better outcomes at 90 days when compared to BMT and was associated with a higher risk of sICH and SAEs compared to usual care, and this result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis.
PROSPERO registration:
The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under the registration identification number CRD420250653970.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.