# Effectiveness and safety of endovascular therapy compared to intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke due to medium-vessel occlusions: a real-world multicentre study from the Italian SITS registry

## TL;DR

This study found that endovascular therapy for medium-vessel stroke does not improve outcomes compared to IVT alone and may increase bleeding risk.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence on EVT effectiveness and safety in MeVO stroke, complementing recent randomized trials.

## Key findings

- EVT did not improve functional independence compared to IVT alone in MeVO stroke patients.
- EVT was associated with a higher rate of intracranial haemorrhage compared to IVT alone.
- A potential benefit was observed for EVT when treatment was initiated within 180 minutes, but it was not statistically significant.

## Abstract

Recent randomised trials have questioned the benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) for MeVO stroke, but data from clinical practice are limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), vs IVT alone in MeVO stroke using registry-based real-world data.

This retrospective multicentre study included patients from 82 Italian centres in the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke (SITS) registry (January 2020–December 2023). Adults with acute ischaemic stroke due to MeVO (ACA A1/A2, MCA M2/M3 or more distal or PCA P1/P2), treated with IVT or EVT ± IVT, and with available 90-day mRS scores were included. Patients with tandem occlusions were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance baseline variables. Primary outcome was functional independence (mRS 0–2) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intracranial haemorrhage incidence and recanalisation status.

Among 1375 total patients, 780 were included and matched (390 per group) by propensity score. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Functional independence at 90 days was achieved in 60.6% of EVT ± IVT patients vs 60.9% in the IVT-only group (odds ratio [OR] 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73–1.34; P = .939). When restricted to patients with baseline mRS < 2, functional independence rates remained comparable between groups, confirming the primary findings. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the EVT ± IVT group (5.4% vs 8.7%, P = .069). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage rates were comparable between groups, although overall haemorrhagic complications were higher with EVT (18.4% vs 11.2%, P < .0001). Stratified analyses by stroke severity and treatment timing showed consistent lack of benefit across all subgroups (all interaction P-values > .05).

The absence of functional benefit from EVT observed in this real-world cohort is consistent with the results of the ESCAPE-MeVO and DISTAL randomized trials. Notably, the higher rate of any intracranial haemorrhage in the EVT group (18.4% vs 11.2%), driven primarily by minor haemorrhagic events, represents a clinically meaningful safety concern that must be weighed against the lack of demonstrated efficacy. A hypothesis-generating signal was observed in patients treated within 180 minutes (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.06–4.38), warranting prospective investigation. The retrospective design and the limitations inherent to registry-based data, including incomplete procedural data and anatomical heterogeneity in MeVO classification, should be considered when interpreting these findings.

Endovascular therapy did not improve long-term functional outcomes compared to IVT alone in MeVO stroke but was associated with higher haemorrhagic risk. These findings support a cautious approach to EVT in this setting, in line with recent trial evidence.

Graphical Abstract