Alexander Christopher, Caras Andrew, Miller William Kyle, Tahir Rizwan, Mansour Tarek R, Medhkour Azedine, Marin Horia
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Sep;29(9):105018. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105018. Epub 2020 Jun 18.
Recent clinical comparisons of M1 and M2 segment endovascular thrombectomy have reached incongruous results in rates of complication and functional outcomes. This study aims to clarify the controversy surrounding this rapidly advancing technique through literature review and meta-analysis.
A Pubmed search was performed (January 2015-September 2019) using the following keywords: "M2 AND ("stroke" OR "occlusion") AND ("thrombectomy" OR "endovascular")". Safety and clinical outcomes were compared between segments via weighted Student's t-test, Chi-square and odds ratio while study heterogeneity was analyzed using Cochran Q and I tests.
Pubmed identified 208 articles and eleven studies were included after full-text analysis, comprising 2,548 M1 and 758 M2 mechanical thrombectomy segment cases. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores were comparatively lower in patients experiencing an M2 occlusion (16 ± 1.25 vs 13.6 ± 0.96, p < 0.01). Patients who underwent M2 mechanical thrombectomy were more likely to experience both good clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) (48.6% vs 43.5% respectively, OR 1.24; CI 1.05-1.47, p = 0.01) and excellent clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 0-1) (34.7% vs. 26.5%%, OR 1.6; CI 1.28-1.99, p < 0.01) at 90 days compared to M1 mechanical thrombectomy. Neither recanalization rates (75.3% vs 72.8%, OR 0.92, CI 0.75-1.13, p = 0.44) nor symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates (5.6% vs 4.9%, OR 0.92; CI 0.61-1.39, p= 0.7) were significantly different between M1 and M2 cohorts. Mortality was less frequent in the M2 cohort compared to M1 (16.3% vs 20.7%, OR 0.73; CI 0.57-0.94, p = 0.01). M1 and M2 cohorts did not differ in symptom onset-to-puncture (238.1 ± 46.7 vs 239.8 ± 43.9 min respectively, p=0.488) nor symptom onset-to recanalization times (318.7 ± 46.6 vs 317.7 ± 71.1 min respectively, p = 0.772), though mean operative duration was shorter in the M2 cohort (61.8 ± 25.5 vs 54.6 ± 24 min, p < 0.01).
Patients who underwent M2 mechanical thrombectomy had a higher prevalence of good and excellent clinical outcomes compared to the M1 mechanical thrombectomy cohorts. Additionally, our data suggest lower mortality rates in the M2 cohort and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates that are similar to the M1 cohort. Therefore, M2 segment thrombectomy likely does not pose a significantly elevated operative risk and may have a positive impact on patient outcomes.
近期关于M1段和M2段血管内血栓切除术的临床比较在并发症发生率和功能预后方面得出了不一致的结果。本研究旨在通过文献综述和荟萃分析来澄清围绕这一快速发展技术的争议。
于2015年1月至2019年9月在PubMed上进行检索,使用以下关键词:“M2 AND(“中风”或“闭塞”)AND(“血栓切除术”或“血管内”)”。通过加权学生t检验、卡方检验和比值比比较各段之间的安全性和临床结局,同时使用Cochran Q检验和I²检验分析研究异质性。
PubMed检索到208篇文章,经过全文分析后纳入11项研究,包括2548例M1段机械血栓切除术病例和758例M2段机械血栓切除术病例。M2段闭塞患者的基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分相对较低(16 ± 1.25 vs 13.6 ± 0.96,p < 0.01)。与M1段机械血栓切除术相比,接受M2段机械血栓切除术的患者在90天时更有可能获得良好的临床结局(改良Rankin量表0 - 2)(分别为48.6% vs 43.5%,比值比1.24;可信区间1.05 - 1.47,p = 0.01)和优异的临床结局(改良Rankin量表0 - 1)(34.7% vs 26.5%,比值比1.6;可信区间1.28 - 1.99,p < 0.01)。M1组和M2组的再通率(75.3% vs 72.8%,比值比0.92,可信区间0.75 - 1.13,p = 0.44)和有症状颅内出血率(5.6% vs 4.9%,比值比0.92;可信区间0.61 - 1.39,p = 0.7)均无显著差异。与M1组相比,M2组的死亡率更低(16.3% vs 20.7%,比值比0.73;可信区间0.57 - 0.94,p = 0.01)。M1组和M2组在症状发作至穿刺时间(分别为238.1 ± 46.7分钟和239.8 ± 43.9分钟,p = 0.488)以及症状发作至再通时间(分别为318.7 ± 46.6分钟和317.7 ± 71.1分钟,p = 0.772)方面无差异,尽管M2组的平均手术持续时间较短(61.8 ± 25.5分钟 vs 54.6 ± 24分钟,p < 0.01)。
与M1段机械血栓切除术队列相比,接受M2段机械血栓切除术的患者获得良好和优异临床结局的比例更高。此外,我们的数据表明M2组的死亡率较低,且有症状颅内出血率与M1组相似。因此,M2段血栓切除术可能不会显著增加手术风险,并且可能对患者结局产生积极影响。