Comparative analysis of single plane and biplane angiography systems for mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of angiography system could influence the outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), but its impact is not yet well understood. This study aims to compare the clinical and technical outcomes of MT performed with single plane versus biplane angiography systems. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines, by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus to include studies on patients with AIS who underwent MT with either single plane or biplane angiography up to May 4, 2024. The primary outcome was a favorable outcome defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 90 days after the procedure. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test and Q statistics. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 1562 patients were analyzed. Of these, 68.4% were treated with biplane systems and 31.6% with single plane systems. Single plane angiography was associated with a significantly higher rate of favorable outcomes (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80; P<0.01). There were no significant differences in successful recanalization, periprocedural complications, procedure time, total fluoroscopy time, or contrast volume between the two systems. CONCLUSION: While single plane angiography systems may offer slightly better outcomes in MT for AIS, both systems appear equally effective in most clinical and technical perspectives, suggesting that system selection may be more dependent on availability and procedural requirements rather than inherent superiority. Our findings may encourage clinicians to use single-plane angiography in settings where the biplane angiography suite availability is limited, but it should be noted that this observation may have been influenced by selection bias, particularly since the larger studies included in our meta-analysis did not observe this effect in adjusted analyses for potential confounder factors.
