First-pass aspiration versus stent retriever thrombectomy: machine learning study of treatment effect heterogeneity

Randomized trials have shown equivocal outcomes between a direct aspiration as first-pass technique (ADAPT) and stent retriever (SR) stroke thrombectomy, yet whether specific patient subgroups benefit differentially from one technique over the other remains unknown.

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, patients with large vessel occlusion were included, and those who underwent ADAPT versus SR first-pass thrombectomy (either as standalone or combined with aspiration) were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of first-pass effect (FPE, modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2c or better with one attempt) with no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). A causal forest model was used to estimate the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) for each patient, with larger CATEs indicating that ADAPT is expected to be more advantageous. Patients were stratified by CATEs, and outcomes were compared between treatment groups.

Among 6700 included patients, ADAPT (n=3695, 55%) was associated with a higher rate of FPE with no sICH (39.9% vs 26.9%; adjusted OR (aOR) 2.07, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.41, P<0.001). The causal forest identified significant treatment effect heterogeneity (interaction P<0.001), where ADAPT was more advantageous in more recent years and among patients with M1 occlusions presenting in earlier time windows. Low-CATE patients showed no statistically significant difference between techniques (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.45, P=0.70), while medium- and high-CATE patients demonstrated progressively larger ADAPT advantages (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.55, and aOR 2.99, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.98, respectively, both P<0.001).

ADAPT may be superior to SR for a majority of patients, particularly in recent years, and among patients with M1 occlusions presenting in earlier time windows.