Intra-Arterial Thrombolytic vs. Mechanical Thrombectomy in Distal Medium Middle Cerebral Artery Acute Ischemic

Hamza Adel Salim1,2, Benjamin Pulli3, Vivek Yedavalli4

  • 1Johns Hopkins Medical Center, Baltimore, United States. Hamza.sleeem@gmail.com.

Abstract

Insights

Intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) for acute ischemic stroke in distal medium-vessel occlusions (DMVO) of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) showed similar functional outcomes to mechanical thrombectomy (MT). IAT also had numerically fewer safety events, despite lower recanalization rates.

Area of Science:

  • Neurology
  • Interventional Neurology
  • Stroke Medicine

Background:

  • Optimal treatment for acute ischemic stroke due to distal medium-vessel occlusion (DMVO) in the middle cerebral artery (MCA) remains uncertain.
  • Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) may carry higher risks in DMVO, suggesting intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) as a potentially safer alternative.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare functional outcomes and safety profiles of IAT versus MT in acute ischemic stroke caused by MCA DMVO (M2-M4 segments).

Main Methods:

  • A retrospective, propensity score-matched study was conducted across 37 centers using the MAD-MT registry.
  • Patients with MCA DMVO (M2-M4) treated with IAT or MT (with/without IVT) were included.
  • Propensity score matching adjusted for confounders, with excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1 at 90 days) as the primary outcome.

Main Results:

  • After matching, 184 patients (19 IAT, 165 MT) were analyzed with balanced baseline characteristics.
  • Excellent functional outcomes (mRS 0-1) at 90 days were 38% for IAT vs. 21% for MT (P=0.20).
  • Successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) was higher with MT (90% vs. 68%; P=0.02), but symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred only with MT (6.7% vs. 0%; P=0.60).

Conclusions:

  • For MCA DMVO, IAT demonstrated similar functional outcomes and numerically fewer safety events compared to MT, despite lower recanalization rates.
  • These findings require cautious interpretation due to the small IAT sample size.
  • Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these results.