Benefit of Endovascular Treatment for Primary Versus Secondary Medium Vessel Occlusion: A Multi-center Experience

Aims: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients with primary versus secondary medium vessel occlusion (MeVO).

Methods: From 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.

Results: 154 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.

Conclusion: In MeVO patients who received EVT, there was a higher likelihood of poor outcomes in patients with secondary versus primary MeVO.