Search

Background: Patients with pre-stroke disability, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≥3, were excluded from most trials of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute stroke. We sought to evaluate the prognostic factors associated with favorable outcome in stroke patients with known disability undergoing EVT, and the impact of successful reperfusion., Methods: Consecutive acute stroke patients with pre-stroke disability, undergoing EVT, were retrospectively collected between 2016 to 2019 from a Canadian cohort and a multicenter French cohort (Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke registry-ETIS). Favorable outcome was defined as an mRS equal to pre-stroke mRS. Patients achieving successful reperfusion (defined as a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b/3) were compared with patients without successful reperfusion to determine if successful EVT was associated with better functional outcomes., Results: Among 6220 patients treated with EVT, 280 (4.5%) patients with a pre-stroke mRS ≥3 were included. Sixty-one patients (21.8%) had a favorable outcome and 146 (52.1%) died at 3 months. Patients with successful reperfusion had a higher proportion of favorable 90-day mRS (27.6% versus 19.6%, p = 0.025) and a lower mortality (48.3% versus 69.6%, p = 0.008) than patients without successful reperfusion. After adjusting for baseline prognostic factors, successful reperfusion defined by TICI ≥2b was associated with favorable functional outcome (OR 3.16 CI95% [1.11-11.5]; p 0.048)., Conclusion: In patients with pre-stroke disability, successful reperfusion is associated with a greater proportion of favorable outcome and lower mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Authors declare no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted acute stroke care logistics, including delays in hyperacute management and decreased monitoring following endovascular therapy (EVT). We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on 90-day functional outcome among patients treated with EVT., Methods: This is an observational cohort study including all patients evaluated for an acute stroke between March 30, 2020 and September 30, 2020 (pandemic cohort) and 2019 (reference cohort) in a high-volume Canadian academic stroke center. We collected baseline characteristics, acute reperfusion treatment and management metrics. For EVT-treated patients, we assessed the modified Rankin score (mRS) at 90 days. We evaluated the impact of the pandemic on a 90-day favourable functional status (defined as mRS 0-2) and death using multivariable logistic regressions., Results: Among 383 and 339 patients included in the pandemic and reference cohorts, baseline characteristics were similar. Delays from symptom onset to evaluation and in-house treatment were longer during the early first wave, but returned to reference values in the subsequent months. Among the 127 and 136 EVT-treated patients in each respective cohort, favourable 90-day outcome occurred in 53/99 (53%) vs 52/109 (48%, p=0.40), whereas 22/99 (22%) and 28/109 (26%, p=0.56) patients died. In multivariable regressions, the pandemic period was not associated with 90-day favourable functional status (aOR 1.27, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.56) or death (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.63)., Conclusion: In this single-center cohort study conducted in a Canadian pandemic epicenter, the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact 90-day functional outcomes or death among EVT-treated patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The benefit of late window endovascular treatment (EVT) for anterior circulation ischemic stroke has been demonstrated using perfusion-based neuroimaging. We evaluated whether non-contrast CT (NCCT) and CT-angiogram (CTA) alone can select late-presenting patients for EVT., Methods: We performed a retrospective comparison of all patients undergoing EVT at a single comprehensive stroke center from January 2016 to April 2017. Patients planned for EVT were divided into early (<6 hours from onset) and late (≥6 hours from onset or last time seen normal) window groups. Incidence of symptomatic hemorrhagic transformations (sHTs) at 24 hours and 3-month modified Rankin scores (mRSs) were compared., Results: During the study period, 204 (82%) patients underwent EVT in the early and 44 (18%) in the late window. Median (interquartile range) NIH Stroke Scale Score was similar between groups (early: 18 [15-23] vs. late: 17 [13-21]), as were median ASPECT scores (early: 9 [8-10] vs. late: 9 [7-9]). In the late window, 42 (95%) strokes were of unknown onset. Similar proportions of sHT occurred at 24 hours (early: 12 [6%] vs. late: 4 [9%], p = 0.43). At 3 months, the proportion of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) were comparable in the early (80/192 [42%]) and late (16/41 [39%]) windows (p = 0.76)., Conclusion: NCCT- and CTA-based patient selection led to similar functional independence outcomes and low proportions of sHT in the early and late windows. In centers without access to perfusion-based neuroimaging, this pragmatic approach could be safe, particularly for strokes of unknown onset.

Background: The Endovascular Acute Stroke Intervention (EASI) trial was conceived as a pragmatic care trial, designed to integrate trial methods with clinical practice. Reporting the EASI experience was met with objections and criticisms during peer review concerning both scientific and ethical issues. Our goal is to discuss these criticisms in order to promote the pragmatic approach of care trials in outcome-based medical care., Methods: The comments and criticisms of 11 reviewers from 5 journals were collected and analyzed. The EASI protocol was also compared to the protocols of seven thrombectomy trials using the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS)., Results: Main criticisms of EASI concerned selection criteria that were judged to be too vague and too inclusive, brain and vascular imaging methods that were not sufficiently prescribed by protocol, lack of blinding of outcome assessment, and lack of power. EASI was at the pragmatic end of the spectrum of thrombectomy trials., Conclusion: The pragmatic care trial methodology is not currently well-established. More work needs to be done to integrate scientific methods and ethical care in the best medical interest of current patients.

Background: Until recently, the benefits of endovascular treatment in stroke were not proven. Care trials have been designed to simultaneously offer yet-to-be validated interventions and verify treatment outcomes. Our aim was to implement a care trial for patients with acute ischemic stroke., Methods: The study was offered to all patients considered for endovascular management of acute ischemic stroke in one Canadian hospital. Inclusion criteria were broad: onset of symptoms≤5h or at any time in the presence of clinical-imaging mismatch and suspected or demonstrated proximal large vessel occlusion. Exclusion criteria were few: established infarction or hemorrhagic transformation of the target symptomatic territory and poor 3-month prognosis. The primary outcome was mRS≤2 at 3 months. Patients were randomly allocated to standard care or standard care plus endovascular treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT02157532., Results: Seventy-seven patients were recruited in 19 months (March 2013-October 2014) at a single center. Randomized allocation was interrupted when other trials showed the benefits of endovascular therapy. At 3 months, 20 of 40 patients (50.0%; 95% CI: 35%-65%) in the intervention group had reached the primary outcome, compared to 14 of 37 patients (37.8%; 95% CI: 24%-54%) in the control group (P=0.36). Eleven patients in the intervention group died within 3 months compared to 9 patients in the standard care group., Conclusion: A care trial was implemented to offer verifiable care to acute stroke patients. This approach offers a promising means to manage clinical dilemmas and guide uncertain practices., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)