Outcomes of Stroke Thrombectomy Performed by Interventional Radiologists versus Neurointerventional Physicians

PurposeTo test the hypothesis that interventional radiologists (IRs) and neurointerventional (NI) physicians have similar outcomes of endovascular stroke thrombectomy (EVT), which could be used to improve the availability of thrombectomy.Materials and MethodsEight hospitals providing EVT performed by IRs and NI physicians at the same institution submitted sequential retrospective data limited to the era of modern devices. Good clinical outcomes (a 90-day modified Rankin score [mRS] of 0–2) and technically successful revascularization (a modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score of ≥2b) were compared between the specialties after adjusting for treating hospital, patient age, stroke severity, Alberta stroke program early computed tomography score, time from symptom onset to door, and clot location. Propensity score matching was used to compare the outcomes. A total of 1,009 patients were evaluated (622 treated by IRs and 387 treated by NI physicians).ResultsThe median time from stroke onset to puncture was 245 versus 253 minutes (P = .49), the technically successful revascularization rate was 81.8% versus 82.4% (P = .81), and the good clinical outcome rate was 45.5% versus 50.1% (P = .16). After adjusting, the physician specialty was not a significant predictor of good clinical outcomes (odds ratio, 1.028; 95% confidence interval, 0.760–1.390; P = .86). After matching, an mRS of 0–2 was present in 47.7% of IR treated patients and 51.1% of NI treated patients (P = .366).ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in the successful revascularization rate and good clinical outcomes between IRs and NI physicians. The outcomes of EVT performed by IRs were similar to those of EVT performed by NI physicians, as determined using previously published trials and registries. This may be useful for addressing coverage and access to stroke interventions.