Journal of Stroke (Jan 2024)

Thrombectomy in Stroke Patients With Low Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score: Is Modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2c/3 Superior to mTICI 2b?

  • Sameh Samir Elawady,
  • Brian Fabian Saway,
  • Hidetoshi Matsukawa,
  • Kazutaka Uchida,
  • Steven Lin,
  • Ilko Maier,
  • Pascal Jabbour,
  • Joon-Tae Kim,
  • Stacey Quintero Wolfe,
  • Ansaar Rai,
  • Robert M. Starke,
  • Marios-Nikos Psychogios,
  • Edgar A Samaniego,
  • Adam Arthur,
  • Shinichi Yoshimura,
  • Hugo Cuellar,
  • Jonathan A. Grossberg,
  • Ali Alawieh,
  • Daniele G. Romano,
  • Omar Tanweer,
  • Justin Mascitelli,
  • Isabel Fragata,
  • Adam Polifka,
  • Joshua Osbun,
  • Roberto Crosa,
  • Charles Matouk,
  • Min S. Park,
  • Michael R. Levitt,
  • Waleed Brinjikji,
  • Mark Moss,
  • Travis Dumont,
  • Richard Williamson,
  • Pedro Navia,
  • Peter Kan,
  • Reade De Leacy,
  • Shakeel Chowdhry,
  • Mohamad Ezzeldin,
  • Alejandro M. Spiotta,
  • Sami Al Kasab,

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2023.02292
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 26, no. 1
pp. 95 – 103

Abstract

Read online

Background and Purpose Outcomes following mechanical thrombectomy (MT) are strongly correlated with successful recanalization, traditionally defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) ≥2b. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with low Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS; 2–5) who achieved mTICI 2b versus those who achieved mTICI 2c/3 after MT. Methods This study utilized data from the Stroke Thrombectomy and Aneurysm Registry (STAR), which combined databases from 32 thrombectomy-capable stroke centers between 2013 and 2023. The study included only patients with low ASPECTS who achieved mTICI 2b, 2c, or 3 after MT for internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery (M1) stroke. Results Of the 10,229 patients who underwent MT, 234 met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 98 (41.9%) achieved mTICI 2b, and 136 (58.1%) achieved mTICI 2c/3. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The 90-day favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score: 0–3) was significantly better in the mTICI 2c/3 group than in the mTICI 2b group (adjusted odds ratio 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18–4.81; P=0.02). Binomial logistic regression revealed that achieving mTICI 2c/3 was significantly associated with higher odds of a favorable 90-day outcome (odds ratio 2.14; 95% CI 1.07–4.41; P=0.04). Conclusion In patients with low ASPECTS, achieving an mTICI 2c/3 score after MT is associated with a more favorable 90-day outcome. These findings suggest that mTICI 2c/3 is a better target for MT than mTICI 2b in patients with low ASPECTS.

Keywords