Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFlynn, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorHALVORSRUD, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorGonzalo-Almorox, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorCraig, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorRobalino, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcMeekin, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorCora, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorBalami, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorFord, GAen_US
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Pen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-13T14:54:59Z
dc.date.available2017-07-10en_US
dc.date.issued2017-12-01en_US
dc.date.submitted2018-01-12T12:43:17.576Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/35027
dc.description.abstractPurpose Intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy combined with appropriate patient selection (image-based selection of acute ischaemic stroke patients with large artery occlusion) yields improved clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, with trial sequential analysis to understand the benefits, risks and impact of new trials reporting in 2016 on the magnitude/certainty of the estimates for clinical effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy. Method Random effects’ models were conducted of randomised clinical trials comparing mechanical thrombectomy (stent retriever or aspiration devices) with/without adjuvant intravenous thrombolysis with intravenous thrombolysis and other forms of best medical/supportive care in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Study inclusion and risk of bias were assessed independently by two reviewers. Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0–2) and mortality at 90 days, including symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage rate were extracted. Trial sequential analysis established the strength of the evidence derived from the meta-analyses. Findings Eight trials of mechanical thrombectomy with a total sample size of 1841 (916 patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy and 925 treated without mechanical thrombectomy) fulfilled review inclusion criteria. The three most recent trials more precisely defined the effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (modified Rankin Scale 0 to 2; OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.70 to 2.51 based on data from eight trials versus OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.88 to 3.04 based on data from five trials). Meta-analyses showed no effect on mortality (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.07) or symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.85) as found in analysis of first five trials. Trial sequential analysis indicated that the information size requirement was fulfilled to conclude the evidence for mechanical thrombectomy is robust. Discussion The impact of three recent trials on effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy was a more precise pooled effect size for functional independence. Trial sequential analysis demonstrated sufficient evidence for effectiveness and safety of mechanical thrombectomy. Conclusion No further trials of mechanical thrombectomy versus no mechanical thrombectomy are indicated to establish clinical effectiveness. Uncertainty remains as to whether mechanical thrombectomy reduces mortality or increases risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grant for Applied Research Programme (RP-PG-1211-20012).en_US
dc.format.extent308 - 318en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Stroke Journalen_US
dc.subjectAcute ischaemic strokeen_US
dc.subjectintra-arterial thrombolysisen_US
dc.subjectintravenous thrombolysisen_US
dc.subjectmeta-analysisen_US
dc.subjectsequential trial analysisen_US
dc.subjectstent retrieveren_US
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen_US
dc.subjectthrombectomyen_US
dc.titleIntra-arterial Mechanical Thrombectomy Stent Retrievers and Aspiration Devices in the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysisen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/2396987317719362en_US
pubs.issue4en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2396987317719362en_US
pubs.volume2en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-07-10en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record