Background:The treatment of choice for acute ischaemic stroke is the intravenous administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 3-4.5 h of symptom onset. However, the use of a thrombolytic would be limited by its narrow therapeutic window and contraindications. As a result, in recent years, techniques such as mechanical thrombectomy have emerged, which employ thrombus retrieval devices, such as stent retrievers (Solitaire TM , Trevo ® or Revive TM ), whose safety and efficacy in the endovascular treatment of acute ischaemic stroke is analysed in this article. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken until March 2015. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. A meta-analysis of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed, and the weighted average for the case series' sample size was calculated (Review Manager v5.2 and SPSS v19). Results: Seventeen primary studies (2 RCTs, Solitaire TM and Trevo ® vs.Merci ® , and 15 case series) were selected. The RCT results show that stent retrievers have a safety profile similar to the Merci ® device. However, both Solitaire TM and Trevo ® achieved a higher recanalisation success rate (OR, 4.56; 95% CI, 2.63-7.90; p < 0.00001) and appropriate clinical outcome at 90 days (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.52-4.25; p < 0.0004), although the 90-day mortality rate was similar in both groups (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, p = 0.70). Conclusions: Stent retrievers appear to be safe and effective devices, achieving high recanalisation rates and good clinical outcomes in the endovascular treatment of patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to the occlusion of intracranial arteries in comparison with the clot retriever Merci ® .

Clinical practice guidelines are intended to serve as a bridge between the decision levels and the sources of knowledge, giving decision makers the best synthesis of scientific evidence and an analysis of context, to provide elements of judgement and to transfer scientific knowledge into clinical practice. However, the actual impact on health care is variable and effectiveness in changing medical practice, moderate. Qualitative and quantitative studies show that most primary care physicians consider that the guides are a valuable source of advice and training and a kind of improving the quality of healthcare. However, they underline its rigidity, the difficulty to apply to individual patients and that their main goal is to reduce healthcare costs. In Spain, there are several experiences as GuíaSalud in developing clinical practice guidelines aimed specifically at primary care. However, the proper implementation of a clinical practice guideline includes not only the quality and thoroughness of the evidence, but the credibility of professionals and organizations and other contextual factors such as characteristics of patients, providers and organizations or systems. An important step in future research is to develop a better theoretical understanding of organizational change that is required for management and professionals to give appropriate guidance to the implementation of the clinical practice guidelines.

* Los autores han participado en la primera parte de la guía (evaluación y tratamiento, capítulos 2 a 5) 1 , en la segunda (aspectos preventivos, capítulos 6 a 10) 2 , o en ambas 1,2 .

No abstract

No abstract