-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Solitaire flow restoration device versus the Merci Retriever in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (SWIFT): a randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial.
- Jeffrey L Saver, Reza Jahan, Elad I Levy, Tudor G Jovin, Blaise Baxter, Raul G Nogueira, Wayne Clark, Ronald Budzik, Osama O Zaidat, and SWIFT Trialists.
- Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. jsaver@ucla.edu
- Lancet. 2012 Oct 6;380(9849):1241-9.
BackgroundThe Solitaire Flow Restoration Device is a novel, self-expanding stent retriever designed to yield rapid flow restoration in acute cerebral ischaemia. We compared the efficacy and safety of Solitaire with the standard, predicate mechanical thrombectomy device, the Merci Retrieval System.MethodsIn this randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients from 18 sites (17 in the USA and one in France). Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had acute ischaemic stroke with moderate to severe neurological deficits and were treatable by thrombectomy within 8 h of stroke symptom onset. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly allocate patients to receive thrombectomy treatment with either Solitaire or Merci (1:1; block sizes of four and stratified by centre and stroke severity). The primary endpoint was Thrombolysis In Myocardial Ischemia (TIMI) scale 2 or 3 flow in all treatable vessels without symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, after up to three passes of the assigned device, as assessed by an independent core laboratory, which was masked to study assignment. Primary analysis was done by intention to treat. A prespecified efficacy stopping rule triggered an early halt to the trial. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT 01054560.ResultsBetween February, 2010, and February, 2011, we randomly allocated 58 patients to the Solitaire group and 55 patients to the Merci group. The primary efficacy outcome was achieved more often in the Solitaire group than it was in the Merci group (61%vs 24%; difference 37% [95% CI 19-53], odds ratio [OR] 4·87 [95% CI 2·14-11·10]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001, p(superiority)=0·0001). More patients had good 3-month neurological outcome with Solitaire than with Merci (58%vs 33%; difference 25% [6-43], OR 2·78 [1·25-6·22]; p(non-inferiority)=0·0001, p(superiority)=0·02). 90-day mortality was lower in the Solitaire group than it was in the Merci group (17 vs 38; difference -21% [-39 to -3], OR 0·34 [0·14-0·81]; p(non-inferiority)=0·0001, p(superiority)=0·02).InterpretationThe Solitaire Flow Restoration Device achieved substantially better angiographic, safety, and clinical outcomes than did the Merci Retrieval System. The Solitaire device might be a future treatment of choice for endovascular recanalisation in acute ischaemic stroke.FundingCovidien/ev3.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:

- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.