Search

Stroke AI platforms assess infarcted core and potentially salvageable tissue (penumbra) to identify patients suitable for mechanical thrombectomy. Few studies have compared outputs of these platforms, and none have been multicenter or considered NIHSS or scanner/protocol differences. Our objective was to compare volume estimates and thrombectomy eligibility from two widely used CT perfusion (CTP) packages, Viz.ai and RAPID.AI, in a large multicenter cohort. We analyzed CTP data of acute stroke patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) from four institutions. Core and penumbra volumes were estimated by each software and DEFUSE-3 thrombectomy eligibility assessed. Results between software packages were compared and categorized by NIHSS score, scanner manufacturer/model, and institution. Primary analysis of 362 cases found statistically significant differences in both software's volume estimations, with subgroup analysis showing these differences were driven by results from a single scanner model, the Canon Aquilion One. Viz.ai provided larger estimates with mean differences of 8cc and 18cc for core and penumbra, respectively (p<0.001). NIHSS subgroup analysis also showed systematically larger Viz.ai volumes (p<0.001). Despite volume differences, a significant difference in thrombectomy eligibility was not found. Additional subgroup analysis showed significant differences in penumbra volume for the Phillips Ingenuity scanner, and thrombectomy eligibility for the Canon Aquilion One scanner at one center (7 % increased eligibility with Viz.ai, p=0.03). Despite systematic differences in core and penumbra volume estimates between Viz.ai and RAPID.AI, DEFUSE-3 eligibility was not statistically different in primary or NIHSS subgroup analysis. A DEFUSE-3 eligibility difference, however, was seen on one scanner at one institution, suggesting scanner model and local CTP protocols can influence performance and cause discrepancies in thrombectomy eligibility. We thus recommend centers discuss optimal scanning protocols with software vendors and scanner manufacturers to maximize CTP accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mild deficit is a relative contraindication to administration of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV rtPA) for acute ischemic stroke. However, what constitutes “mild” deficit is vague. Prior studies showed patients with mild strokes have substantial disability rates at hospital discharge and at 90 days. We investigated whether the application of a new definition altered the rates of disability overall and assessed the effects of thrombolysis. Methods This analysis included all adult acute ischemic stroke patients from a prospective registry of consecutive patients (University of California San Diego Specialized Programs of Translational Research in Acute Stroke (SPOTRIAS) database, 2003-2014) with 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score available who were defined as “mild” using either: National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 0-5 or a “Re-examining Acute Eligibility for Thrombolysis” (TREAT) Task Force definition (NIHSS 0-5 and nondisabling based on prespecified syndromes). Dichotomized 90-day mRS were compared between treated and untreated patients using the 2 definitions. Results Of 802 ischemic stroke patients with mRS scores available, 184 had baseline mRS (0) and met TREAT criteria; 45 (24.5%) were rtPA treated. Among the treated patients, 35.6% had 90-day mRS (2-6), versus 28.8% in the untreated group, a nonsignificant difference after adjusting for baseline NIHSS ( P = .47). None of the 45 treated patients had symptomatic hemorrhage. Outcomes were similar using the simpler NIHSS 0-5 definition. Conclusions About one third of mild stroke patients were not functionally independent at 90 days, irrespective of treatment or mild definition applied, calling into question the treatment efficacy of IV rtPA for mild strokes and what constitutes an appropriate definition of “mild.” Randomized studies are necessary to determine rtPA treatment efficacy in mild stroke patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Neuro Thera Effectiveness and Safety Trials ( NEST) 1 and 2 have demonstrated safety of transcranial laser therapy ( TLT) for human treatment in acute ischemic stroke. NEST 1 study suggested efficacy of TLT but the following NEST 2, despite strong signals, missed reaching significance on its primary efficacy endpoint. In order to assess efficacy in a larger cohort, a pooled analysis was therefore performed. Methods The two studies were first compared for heterogeneity, and then a pooled analysis was performed to assess overall safety and efficacy, and examined particular subgroups. The primary endpoint for the pooled analysis was dichotomized modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0-2 at 90 days. Results Efficacy analysis for the intention-to-treat population was based on a total of 778 patients. Baseline characteristics and prognostic factors were balanced between the two groups. The TLT group ( n = 410) success rate measured by the dichotomized 90-day m RS was significantly higher compared with the sham group ( n = 368) ( P = 0·003, OR: 1·67, 95% CI: 1·19-2·35). The distribution of scores on the 90-day m RS was significantly different in TLT compared with sham ( P = 0·0005 Cochran- Mantel- Haenszel). Subgroup analysis identified moderate strokes as a predictor of better treatment response. Conclusions This pooled analysis support the likelihood that transcranial laser therapy is effective for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke when initiated within 24 h of stroke onset. If ultimately confirmed, transcranial laser therapy will change management and improve outcomes of far more patients with acute ischemic stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Previous studies have found mortality among ischemic stroke patients to be higher on weekends. We sought to evaluate whether weekend admission was associated with worse outcomes in a large comprehensive stroke center (CSC) cohort. Methods: Consecutive ischemic stroke patients presenting within 6 h of symptom onset were identified using the 8 CSC SPOTRIAS (Specialized Programs of Translational Research in Acute Stroke) database. Patients who received intra-arterial therapy or who were enrolled in a nonobservational clinical trial were excluded. All patients meeting the inclusion criteria were then divided into two groups: weekday admissions or weekend admissions. Weekend admission was defined as Friday 17:01 to Monday 08:59. The remainder were classified as weekday admissions. Multivariate logistic regression was used, adjusting for age, stroke severity on admission [according to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)] and admission glucose, in order to compare the outcomes of the weekend versus the weekday groups. Results: Eight thousand five hundred and eighty-one subjects from the combined SPOTRIAS database were screened from 2002 to 2009; 2,090 (24.4%) of these met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in tissue plasminogen activator treatment rates between the weekday and weekend groups (58.5 vs. 60.4%, p = 0.397). Weekend admission was not a significant independent predictor of inhospital mortality (8.4 vs. 9.9%, p = 0.056), length of stay (4 vs. 5 days, p = 0.442), favorable discharge disposition (38.0 vs. 42.2%, p = 0.122), favorable functional outcome at discharge (41.6 vs. 43.4%, p = 0.805), favorable 90-day functional outcome (54.2 vs. 46.9%, p = 0.301), or 90-day mortality (18.2 vs. 19.8%, p = 0.680) when adjusting for age, NIHSS and admission glucose. Conclusions: In this large cohort of ischemic stroke patients treated at CSCs, we did not observe the 'weekend effect.' This may be due to access to stroke specialists 24 h a day on 365 days a year, nurses with stroke experience and the organized system for delivering care that is available at CSCs. These results suggest that EMS protocol should be reexamined regarding the preferential delivery of weekend stroke victims to hospitals that provide all levels of reperfusion therapy. This further highlights the importance of organized stroke care. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]