Abstract WP26: Use of Balloon-guide Catheter Bridges the Difference in Technical Outcomes Between Adapt and Stent Retriever Thrombectomy for Ischemic Stroke - Insights From STAR Collaboration

Abstract

Introduction: Recently completed randomized controlled trials comparing aspiration thrombectomy (ADAPT) to stent retriever thrombectomy (SRT) demonstrated similar clinical outcomes, but faster thrombectomy procedure time in the ADAPT group. This study evaluates the difference in technical outcomes between ADAPT and SRT combined with balloon-guide catheters (BGC). Methods: Patients undergoing thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at 12 comprehensive stroke centers in the US and Europe between 01/2013 and 12/2018 were reviewed. Data was collected retrospectively from patient charts, procedure notes, and patient follow-up in neurology clinics. Clinical endpoint was the modified Rankin score (mRS) at 90-days, and technical outcomes were procedure time, total attempts, and mTICI scores. Results: The study included 2,016 patients (mean age 69±15) who underwent stroke thrombectomy using ADAPT (46%), SRT (46%), or SRT+BGC (8%). Similar baseline characteristics were observed between the three groups, and no significant difference in mRS scores at 90-days between the three groups in univariate and multivariate analyses. Thrombectomy performed using SRT+BGC required significantly shorter procedure time compared to SRT (35 vs 61 min, p<0.001) that was comparable to ADAPT (36 min, p>0.1). However, use of SRT+BGC required significantly lower number of aspiration attempts compared to ADAPT (median 1 vs. 2, p<0.05). On multivariate linear regression, use of SRT+BGC independent predicted a significant reduction in procedure time compared to SRT (coefficient=-30.6, p<0.001), and significantly lower number of attempts compared to ADAPT (coefficient=-0.4, p=0.01). SRT+BGC was an independent predictor of higher mortality compared to ADAPT (OR=2.4, p<0.01), despite comparable rates of favorable outcomes (mRS 0-2) between the two groups. Use of SRT+BGC was not an independent predictor of symptomatic hemorrhage or complications compared to SRT or ADAPT. Conclusions: This study shows that although ADAPT allows for faster procedure time compared to SRT, the use of BGC in SRT allows for a comparable procedure time to ADAPT with similar overall rates of favorable outcome, complications and hemorrhage. Mortality was higher with the use of BGC compared to ADAPT.