Benefit of endovascular treatment for primary versus secondary medium vessel occlusion: A multi‐center experience

Abstract

AbstractAimsThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients with primary versus secondary medium vessel occlusion (MeVO).MethodsFrom the endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in the China registry, we collected consecutive patients with MeVO who received EVT. The primary endpoint was a good outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0 to 2 at 90 days.Results154 patients were enrolled in the final analysis, including 74 primary MeVO and 80 secondary MeVO. A good outcome at 90 days was achieved in 42 (56.8%) patients with primary MeVO and 33 (41.3%) patients with secondary MeVO. There was a higher probability of good outcomes in patients with the primary vs secondary MeVO (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 4.46; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in secondary and safety outcomes between MeVO groups. In the multivariable analysis, baseline ASPECTS (p = 0.001), final modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score (p = 0.01), and any ICH (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with good outcomes in primary MeVO patients, while baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (p = 0.002), groin puncture to recanalization time (p = 0.02), and early neurological improvement (p < 0.001) were factors associated with good outcome in secondary MeVO patients.ConclusionIn MeVO patients who received EVT, there was a higher likelihood of poor outcomes in patients with secondary versus primary MeVO.