Evidence Hub

Abstract 278: Patterns of Mechanical Thrombectomy for Stroke Before and After the 2015 Pivotal Trials:5 Years Follow‐up

Yaswanth Chintaluru, K. Atchaneeyasakul, Nicholas Liaw, Keiko A Fukuda, A. Méndez, Okkes Kuybu, S. Desai, A. Pinheiro et al.

Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology, 2023

4,003,405 participants

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines recommended mechanical thrombectomy with stent‐retriever devices. A prior published analysis of national trends after one year in mechanical thrombectomy use and outcomes for stroke before and after publication of the 2015 US guideline update showed improved functional outcomes and lower peri‐procedural mortality. We analyze the national trends in mechanical thrombectomy use and outcomes for stroke five years after publication of the US guideline update. Methods We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample from 2012‐2019. ICD‐9 and ICD‐10 codes identified Ischemic stroke and mechanical thrombectomy patients. Similar to the previous study, discharge to home was the primary efficacy outcome measure in this study since it strongly correlates with mild degree of disability at discharge and 3 months post‐stroke. Safety outcomes include in‐hospital medical complications and mortality. We utilized multivariate logistic regression to assess outcomes. Results From 2012‐2019, 4,003,405 individuals with a diagnosis of ischemic stroke were recorded, 103,605 (2.6%) of which were treated with mechanical thrombectomy, proportionally increased from 4,910/452,905 (1.1%) in 2012 to 26,365/552,780 (4.8%) in 2019. The proportion of endovascular thrombectomy performing hospitals nearly doubled during the study period from 2012 (295/4,378; 6.7%) to 2019 (582/4,568; 12.7%). Odds of a mild disability outcome increased from 16% to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,003,405 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free