Randomized Study Comparing First-Line Dual Versus Single-Stent Retriever Technique: TWIN2WIN
- PMID: 39704055
- DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.048496
Randomized Study Comparing First-Line Dual Versus Single-Stent Retriever Technique: TWIN2WIN
Erratum in
-
Correction to: Randomized Study Comparing First-Line Dual Versus Single-Stent Retriever Technique: TWIN2WIN.Stroke. 2025 Apr;56(4):e129. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000489. Epub 2025 Mar 24. Stroke. 2025. PMID: 40127148 No abstract available.
Abstract
Background: The double-stent retriever (SR) technique has been described as an effective rescue technique when single-SR fails to induce recanalization. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of first-line double-SR in patients with stroke undergoing thrombectomy.
Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, blinded adjudicated primary outcome study. Patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 24 hours after onset and undergoing thrombectomy were included. Upon confirmation of large vessel occlusion on initial angiogram, patients were randomly allocated to receive a first-line strategy: single-SR versus double-SR technique. Investigators could use their technique of choice if further passes were needed. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of double-SR defined as first-pass complete recanalization (expanded Treatment in Cerebral Infarction grade 2c-3) compared with single-SR. First-pass recanalization and final successful recanalization (expanded Treatment in Cerebral Infarction grade 2b50-3) were centrally assessed by a blinded investigator. The safety outcome was the occurrence of a symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. The data safety monitoring board stopped the recruitment after a preplanned interim analysis because a predefined efficacy boundary was reached.
Results: From April 2022 to October 2023, 108 patients were included: 50 (46%) in the single-SR group and 58 (54%) in the double-SR group. First-pass recanalization was achieved in 12 of 50 patients (24%) allocated to single-SR and 27 of 58 patients (46%) allocated to double-SR (adjusted odds ratio, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.19-6.46]). Substantial reperfusion within 3 attempts was obtained in 42 patients (84%) allocated to single-SR and in 52 patients (89%) allocated to double-SR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 0.5-5.76]). The mean number of passes was 2±1.3 with single-SR and 1.7±1 with double-SR (mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.06]). A symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 3 patients (6%) allocated to single-SR and in 6 patients (10%) allocated to double-SR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.40-8.35]).
Conclusions: In patients with stroke undergoing thrombectomy, first-line double-SR is safe and superior to single-SR in achieving first-pass recanalization but not final recanalization. Implications on clinical outcomes should be studied in specifically designed trials.
Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05632458.
Keywords: reperfusion; stents; stroke; thrombectomy.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr Ribo is the co-founder of Anaconda Biomed and Nora and has a consulting agreement with Medtronic, Cerenovus, Methinks, Vesalio, Stryker, Philips, Rapid Pulse, Sensome, and Apta Targets. Dr Tomasello reports consulting agreements with Anaconda Biomed, Balt, i-vascular, Medtronic, Perflow, and Stryker. Dr Moreu reports consulting agreements with Angionautix, Balt, Inspire Medical, Medtronic, and Stryker. Dr Ortega is an employee of Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa; reports consulting agreements with Medtronic, Methinks, and MicroVention; and received grants from the National Institutes of Health, Siemens, and Stryker. The other authors report no conflicts.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials