Large cohort analysis reveals predictors of failed recanalization and significant outcomes in stroke patients, implicating anatomical access issues.
Background Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard of care for large vessel occlusion stroke, yet technical failure persists in a significant minority of cases. Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a recognized driver of failure in Asian populations; its prevalence in Western cohorts is underestimated. We aimed to classify mechanisms of technical failure in a large cohort and investigate the impact of both unrecognized ICAD and anatomical access difficulties. Methods We analyzed 2467 consecutive single-center EVT procedures retrospectively. Failure was defined as final modified Treatment In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) <2b or no angiographic improvement. Failures were classified into three categories: type 1 (access failure), type 2 (clot accessed but no durable reperfusion), and type 3 (aborted/other). Type 2 failures were adjudicated by consensus to identify features suggestive of ICAD. Results Recanalization failure occurred in 313 patients (12.7%); type 1 accounted for 40 (12.8%), type 2 occurred in 127 (40.6%), and 146 (46.6%) were type 3. Baseline age and stroke severity were similar between successful and failed groups, but failure was associated with significantly longer procedure times (median 60 vs 30 min, P<0.001) and almost threefold higher in-hospital mortality (29.4% vs 11.0%, P<0.001). Among type 2 failures, 18.1% were adjudicated as likely underlying ICAD and 4.7% as possible ICAD. While overall failure rates declined from 23.0% (2012–2015) to 11.2% (2019–2023) driven by improvements in M1 middle cerebral artery recanalization, the incidence of type 1 failures did not significantly improve over time (P=0.20), representing a persistent unmet technical need. Conclusions Despite technical advances, procedural failure remains a distinct event with catastrophic outcomes. Up to 22.8% of retrieval failures in this Western cohort were attributable to likely/possible underlying ICAD rather than refractory emboli.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: