Moriz Herzberg, Franziska Dorn, Christoph Trumm, Lars Kellert, Steffen Tiedt, Katharina Feil, Clemens Küpper, Frank Wollenweber, Thomas Liebig, Hanna Zimmermann

• There is ongoing debate concerning the safety and efficacy of various mechanical thrombectomy (MT) approaches for M2 occlusions. We compared these for MT in M2 versus M1 occlusions. Subgroup analyses of different technical approaches within the M2 MT cohort were also performed. Patients were included from the German Stroke Registry (GSR), a multicenter registry of consecutive MT patients. Primary outcomes were reperfusion success events. Secondary outcomes were early clinical improvement (improvement in NIHSS score > 4) and independent survivalThere is ongoing debate concerning the safety and efficacy of various mechanical thrombectomy (MT) approaches for M2 occlusions. We compared these for MT in M2 versus M1 occlusions. Subgroup analyses of different technical approaches within the M2 MT cohort were also performed. Patients were included from the German Stroke Registry (GSR), a multicenter registry of consecutive MT patients. Primary outcomes were reperfusion success events. Secondary outcomes were early clinical improvement (improvement in NIHSS score > 4) and independent survival at 90 days (mRS 0–2). Out of 3804 patients, 2689 presented with M1 (71%) and 1115 with isolated M2 occlusions (29%). The mean age was 76 (CI 65–82) and 77 (CI 66–83) years, respectively. Except for baseline NIHSS (15 (CI 10–18) vs. 11 (CI 6–16), p < 0.001) and ASPECTS (9 (CI 7–10) vs. 9 (CI 8–10, p < 0.001), baseline demographics were balanced. Apart from a more frequent use of dedicated small vessel stent retrievers (svSR) in M2 (17.4% vs. 3.0; p < 0.001), intraprocedural aspects were balanced. There was no difference in ICH at 24 h (11%; p = 1.0), adverse events (14.4% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.63), clinical improvement (62.5% vs. 61.4 %; p = 0.57), mortality (26.9% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.23). In M2 MT, conventional stent retriever (cSR) achieved higher rates of mTICI3 (54.0% vs. 37.7–42.0%; p < 0.001), requiring more MT-maneuvers (7, CI 2–8) vs. 2 (CI 2–7)/(CI 2–2); p < 0.001) and without impact on efficacy and outcome. Real-life MT in M2 can be performed with equal safety and efficacy as in M1 occlusions. Different recanalization techniques including the use of svSR did not result in significant differences regarding safety, efficacy and outcome.…