Search

Background: Acute intracranial occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) can be distinguished into (a) occlusion of the terminal ICA, involving the proximal segments of the middle or anterior cerebral artery (ICA-L/-T) and (b) non-terminal intracranial occlusions of the ICA with patent circle of Willis (ICA-I). While patients with ICA-L/-T occlusion were included in all randomized controlled trials on endovascular therapy (EVT) in anterior large vessel occlusion, data on EVT in ICA-I occlusion is scarce. We thus aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of EVT in ICA-I occlusions in comparison to ICA-L/-T occlusions., Methods: A large international multicentre cohort was searched for patients with intracranial ICA occlusion treated with EVT between 2014 and 2023. Patients were stratified by ICA occlusion pattern, differentiating ICA-I and ICA-L/-T occlusions. Baseline factors, technical (modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) scale) and functional outcomes (modified Rankin scale [mRS] at 3 months) as well as rates of (symptomatic) intracranial hemorrhage ([s]ICH) were analyzed., Results: Of 13,453 patients, 1825 (13.6%) had isolated ICA occlusion. ICA-occlusion pattern was ICA-I in 559 (4.2%) and ICA-L/-T in 1266 (9.4%) patients. Age (years: 74 vs 73), sex (female: 45.8% vs 49.0%) and pre-stroke functional independency (pre-mRS ⩽ 2: 89.9% vs 92.2%) did not differ between the groups. Stroke severity was lower in ICA-I patients (NIHSS at admission: 14 [7-19] vs 17 [13-21] points). EVT was similarly successful with respect to technical (mTICI2b/3: 76.1% (ICA-I) vs 76.6% (ICA-L/-T); aOR 1.01 [0.76-1.35]) and functional outcome (mRS ordinal shift cOR 1.01 [0.83-1.23] in adjusted analyses. Rates of ICH (18.9% vs 34.5%; aOR 0.47 [0.36-0.62] and sICH (4.7% vs 7.3%; aOR 0.58 [0.35-0.97] were lower in ICA-I patients., Conclusion: EVT might be performed safely and similarly successful in patients with ICA-I occlusions as in patients with ICA-L/-T occlusions., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: RRL received speaker honoraria from IscemaView, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Jansen, Biogen, Medtronic and Abott and advisory board honoraria from Jansen and Bayer.STE has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, and MindMaze and on the editorial board of Stroke. His institutions have received an educational grant from Pfizer, compensation from Stago for educational efforts and research support from Daiichi-Sankyo, the Science Funds [Wissenschaftsfonds] of the University Hospital Basel, the University Basel, from the “Wissenschaftsfonds Rehabilitation” of the University Hospital for Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, the “Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel,” the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the Swiss National Science Foundation.HG has received research support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, advisory board honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo and funding for travel from BMS/Pfizer.AZ received speaker honoraria from CSL Behring, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Alexion-Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo and advisory board honoraria from Bayer, Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo.DRJ received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Boehringer Ingelheim.VP received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Boehringer Ingelheim.H.J.A. reports receiving personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Roche that all produce products for hyperacute stroke care.MRH reports grants from SITEM Research Support Funds and Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, not directly related to this manuscript.AS received travel grants from NovoNordiskPM received grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and Faculty of Biology and Medicine of the Lausanne UniversityCHN reports receiving speaker honoraria from Abbot, Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Pfizer and Takeda, all outside the submitted work.All further authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the presented study.

Introduction: Most intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) trials assessed outcome at 3 months but the recovery trajectory of ICH survivors may continue up to 1 year after the index event. We aimed to describe the predictors of functional outcome improvement from 3 to 12 months after ICH., Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients admitted to six European Stroke Centers for supratentorial ICH. Functional outcome was measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 and 12 months. Predictors of functional outcome improvement were explored with binary logistic regression., Results: We included 703 patients, of whom 245 (34.9%) died within 3 months. Among survivors, 131 (28.6%) had an mRS improvement, 78 (17.0%) had a worse mRS and 249 (54.4%) had a stable functional status at 12 months. Older age and the presence of baseline disability (defined as pre-stroke mRS > 1), were associated with lower odds of functional outcome improvement (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.98 per year increase, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.96-1.00, p  = 0.017 and OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.81, p  = 0.008 respectively). Conversely, deep ICH location increased the probability of long term mRS improvement (OR 1.67, 95% CI, 1.07-2.61, p  = 0.023). Patients with mild-moderate disability at 3 months (mRS 2-3) had the highest odds of improvement at 12 months (OR 8.76, 95% CI 3.68-20.86, p  < 0.001)., Discussion and Conclusion: Long term recovery is common after ICH and associated with age, baseline functional status, mRS at 3 months and hematoma location. Our findings might inform future trials and improve long-term prognostication in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Morotti declared consulting and expert meeting honoraria for EMG-REG International and AstraZeneca. Jawed Nawabi is supported by the BIH Charité – Digital Clinician Scientist Program funded by Charité - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, the Berlin Institute of Health and the German Research Foundation (DFG,Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Paciaroni received honoraria as a member of the speaker bureau of Sanofi-Aventis, iRhythm, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Daiiki Sankyo and Pfizer. Dr. Zini declared consulting and speaker fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Alexion-AstraZeneca and CSL Behring, Bayer, Angels Iniziative, Daiichi-Sankio.All the other Authors report no disclosures.