Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: New studies have shown that endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is safe and effective for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with large ischemic areas. The aim of our study is to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing EVT versus medical management only. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVT versus medical management alone in AIS patients with large ischemic regions. We conducted our meta-analysis using fixed-effect models to compare functional independence, mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) between EVT and standard medical management only. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. RESULTS: Of 14,513 citations, we included 3 RCTs with a total of 1,010 participants. We found low-certainty evidence of possibly a large increase in the proportion of patients with functional independence (risk difference [RD] 30.3%, 95% CI 15.0% to 52.3%), low-certainty evidence of possibly a small non-significant decrease in mortality (RD -0.7%, 95% CI -3.8% to 3.5%), and low-certainty evidence of possibly a small non-significant increase in sICH (RD 3.1%, 95% CI -0.3% to 9.8%) for AIS patients with large infarcts who underwent EVT compared to medical management only. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence shows that there is possibly a large increase in functional independence, a small non-significant decrease in mortality, and a small non-significant increase in sICH amongst AIS patients with large infarcts undergoing EVT compared to medical management only.