A nationwide analysis reveals lower mechanical thrombectomy rates and higher mortality in solid organ transplant recipients after stroke.
Background: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients represent a medically complex cohort with a high burden of risk factors for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, national patterns of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) utilization and its associated outcomes in this population remain poorly defined. Objective: We sought to evaluate temporal trends in MT utilization for AIS and to determine the association of SOT status with in-hospital mortality following the procedure. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2016–2022. Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare the odds of receiving MT among all AIS patients and the odds of in-hospital mortality among MT recipients, stratifying by SOT status. Models were adjusted for a comprehensive set of patient- and hospital-level confounders. Results: The study cohort included an estimated 4.76 million AIS hospitalizations. MT utilization was significantly lower in SOT recipients compared to non-recipients (2.79% vs. 4.42%; p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, SOT status was independently associated with significantly lower odds of receiving MT (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 0.585, 95% CI 0.474–0.721). Among the cohort of patients who underwent MT (n≈197,000), SOT was associated with a statistically non-significant increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 0.92–2.68; p=0.10), with adjusted mortality rates of 15.2% and 10.4% for SOT and non-SOT patients, respectively. Conclusion: Nationally, patients with a history of solid organ transplantation who present with acute ischemic stroke are significantly less likely to receive mechanical thrombectomy. This disparity in care underscores a critical need to identify and address the barriers to optimal stroke reperfusion therapy in this vulnerable population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: