Mechanical Thrombectomy for Isolated M2 Occlusions: A Post Hoc Analysis of the XXXX , @entity514 , and @entity514 PRIME Studies.

@entity1 @entity624 @entity514 @entity432 @entity1779 @entity385
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Mechanical thrombectomy is beneficial for @entity1 with acute @entity385 and a proximal anterior occlusion, but it is unclear if these results can be extrapolated to @entity1 with an @entity432 . The purpose of this study was to examine the technical aspects, safety, and outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy with a stent retriever in @entity1 with an isolated @entity432 who were included in 3 large multicenter prospective studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included @entity1 from the Solitaire Flow Restoration Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization ( @entity624 ), Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy ( @entity514 ), and Solitaire With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment ( @entity514 PRIME) studies, 3 large multicenter prospective studies on thrombectomy for @entity385 . We compared outcomes and technical details of @entity1 with an M2 with those with an M1 occlusion. All @entity1 were treated with a stent retriever. Imaging data and outcomes were scored by an independent core laboratory. Successful reperfusion was defined as modified Thrombolysis in @entity385 score of 2b/3. RESULTS: We included 50 @entity1 with an M2 and 249 @entity1 with an M1 occlusion. @entity1 with an @entity432 were older (mean age, 71 versus 67 years; P = .04) and had a lower NIHSS score (median, 13 versus 17; P < .001) compared with those with an M1 occlusion. Procedural time was nonsignificantly shorter in @entity1 with an @entity432 (median, 29 versus 35 minutes; P = .41). The average number of passes with a stent retriever was also nonsignificantly lower in @entity1 with an @entity432 (mean, 1.4 versus 1.7; P = .07). There were no significant differences in successful reperfusion (85% versus 82%, P = .82), symptomatic @entity1779 (2% versus 2%, P = 1.0), device-related serious adverse events (6% versus 4%, P = .46), or modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 at follow-up (60% versus 56%, P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular reperfusion therapy appears to be feasible in selected @entity1 with @entity385 and an @entity432 .
