Search

Background: The efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) beyond 6 hours from stroke onset for patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) selected without CT perfusion(CTP) or MR imaging(MRI) is undetermined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature comparing outcomes for late presenting patients with LVO treated by best medical management (BMM) with those selected for EVT based only on non-contrast CT(NCCT)/CT angiography(CTA) (without CTP or MRI)., Methods: PRISMA guidelines were employed. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) and mortality at 3 months. Data were analysed using the random-effects model., Results: Six studies of 2083 patients, including three randomised controlled trials, were included; 1271 patients were treated with EVT and 812 patients with BMM. Compared to BMM, patients treated with EVT demonstrated higher odds of achieving functional independence (39.0 % EVT vs 22.0 % BMM; OR = 2.55, 95 %CI 1.61-4.05,p < 0.0001, I 2 = 74 %). The rates of sICH (OR = 2.09, 95 %CI 0.86-5.04,p = 0.10) and mortality (OR = 0.62, 95 %CI 0.35-1.10,p = 0.10) were not significantly different between each cohort., Conclusion: Compared to BMM, late presenting stroke patients selected for EVT eligibility with NCCT/CTA only and treated with EVT achieved significantly higher rates of functional independence at 90 days, without increasing the incidence of sICH or mortality. Whilst these findings indicate that NCCT/CTA only may be used for EVT eligibility selection for patients who present beyond 6 hours from stroke onset, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the substantial heterogeneity between studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest No disclosures or competing interests declared by the authors., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Robotic-assisted neurointervention was recently introduced, with implications that it could be used to treat neurovascular diseases., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the robotic-assisted platform CorPath GRX for treating cerebral aneurysms., Methods: This prospective, international, multicenter study enrolled patients with brain aneurysms that required endovascular coiling and/or stent-assisted coiling. The primary effectiveness endpoint was defined as successful completion of the robotic-assisted endovascular procedure without any unplanned conversion to manual treatment with guidewire or microcatheter navigation, embolization coil(s) or intracranial stent(s) deployment, or an inability to navigate vessel anatomy. The primary safety endpoint included intraprocedural and periprocedural events., Results: The study enrolled 117 patients (74.4% female) with mean age of 56.6 years from 10 international sites,. Headache was the most common presenting symptom in 40/117 (34.2%) subjects. Internal carotid artery was the most common location (34/122, 27.9%), and the mean aneurysm height and neck width were 5.7±2.6 mm and 3.5±1.4 mm, respectively. The overall procedure time was 117.3±47.3 min with 59.4±32.6 min robotic procedure time. Primary effectiveness was achieved in 110/117 (94%) subjects with seven subjects requiring conversion to manual for procedure completion. Only four primary safety events were recorded with two intraprocedural aneurysm ruptures and two strokes. A Raymond-Roy Classification Scale score of 1 was achieved in 71/110 (64.5%) subjects, and all subjects were discharged with a modified Rankin Scale score of ≤2., Conclusions: This first-of-its-kind robotic-assisted neurovascular trial demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of the CorPath GRX System for endovascular embolization of cerebral aneurysm procedures., Trial Registration Number: NCT04236856., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VMP is an unpaid consultant for Siemens Healthinners Endovascular Robotics. The following authors have one or more competing interests: HR, NS, FC, DH, MP, JG, MK-O, RDT, RB. These competing interests include board membership, consultancy, employment, expert testimony grants, contract research, lectures/other education events, speakers’ bureau, and receipt of equipment or supplies, royalties, stock/stock options/other forms of ownership., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Advances in robotic technology have improved standard techniques in numerous surgical and endovascular specialties, offering more precision, control, and better patient outcomes. Robotic-assisted interventional neuroradiology is an emerging field at the intersection of interventional neuroradiology and biomedical robotics. Endovascular robotics can automate maneuvers to reduce procedure times and increase its safety, reduce occupational hazards associated with ionizing radiations, and expand networks of care to reduce gaps in geographic access to neurointerventions. To date, many robotic neurointerventional procedures have been successfully performed, including cerebral angiography, intracranial aneurysm embolization, carotid stenting, and epistaxis embolization. This review aims to provide a survey of the state of the art in robotic-assisted interventional neuroradiology, consider their technical and adoption limitations, and explore future developments critical for the widespread adoption of robotic-assisted neurointerventions., Competing Interests: S.N. is a founder of INIA Biosciences: none related to this topic; grant support from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. T.N.N.: research support from Medtronic, Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. C.C. is a founder of Nanoflex Robotics AG. S.A.K: grant support from Stryker Neurovascular. No relevant disclosures for the remainder of the authors., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) access in remote areas is limited. Preliminary data suggest that long distance transfers for EVT may be beneficial; however, the magnitude and best imaging strategy at the referring center remains uncertain. We hypothesized that patients transferred >300 miles would benefit from EVT, achieving rates of functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score of 0-2) at 3 months similar to those patients treated at the comprehensive stroke center in the randomized EVT extended window trials and that the selection of patients with computed tomography perfusion (CTP) at the referring site would be associated with ordinal shift toward better outcomes on the mRS., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients transferred from 31 referring hospitals >300 miles (measured by the most direct road distance) to 9 comprehensive stroke centers in Australia and New Zealand for EVT consideration (April 2016 through May 2021)., Results: There were 131 patients; the median age was 64 [53-74] years and the median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 16 [12-22]. At baseline, 79 patients (60.3%) had noncontrast CT+CT angiography, 52 (39.7%) also had CTP. At the comprehensive stroke center, 114 (87%) patients underwent cerebral angiography, and 96 (73.3%) proceeded to EVT. At 3 months, 62 patients (48.4%) had an mRS score of 0 to 2 and 81 (63.3%) mRS score of 0 to 3. CTP selection at the referring site was not associated with better ordinal scores on the mRS at 3 months (mRS median of 2 [1-3] versus 3 [1-6] in the patients selected with noncontrast CT+CT angiography, P =0.1). Nevertheless, patients selected with CTP were less likely to have an mRS score of 5 to 6 (odds ratio 0.03 [0.01-0.19]; P <0.01)., Conclusions: In selected patients transferred >300 miles, there was a benefit for EVT, with outcomes similar to those treated in the comprehensive stroke center in the EVT extended window trials. Remote hospital CTP selection was not associated with ordinal mRS improvement, but was associated with fewer very poor 3-month outcomes.

Background: The benefit of combined treatment with intravenous thrombolysis before endovascular thrombectomy in patients with acute ischaemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion remains unclear. We hypothesised that the clinical outcomes of patients with stroke with large vessel occlusion treated with direct endovascular thrombectomy within 4·5 h would be non-inferior compared with the outcomes of those treated with standard bridging therapy (intravenous thrombolysis before endovascular thrombectomy)., Methods: DIRECT-SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial. Adult patients with stroke and large vessel occlusion in the intracranial internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery (M1 or M2), or basilar artery, confirmed by non-contrast CT and vascular imaging, and who presented within 4·5 h of stroke onset were recruited from 25 acute-care hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, China, and Vietnam. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based, computer-generated randomisation procedure stratified by site of baseline arterial occlusion and by geographic region to direct endovascular thrombectomy or bridging therapy. Patients assigned to bridging therapy received intravenous thrombolytic (alteplase or tenecteplase) as per standard care at each site; endovascular thrombectomy was also per standard of care, using the Trevo device (Stryker Neurovascular, Fremont, CA, USA) as first-line intervention. Personnel assessing outcomes were masked to group allocation; patients and treating physicians were not. The primary efficacy endpoint was functional independence defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 or return to baseline at 90 days, with a non-inferiority margin of -0·1, analysed by intention to treat (including all randomly assigned and consenting patients) and per protocol. The intention-to-treat population was included in the safety analyses. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03494920, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between June 2, 2018, and July 8, 2021, 295 patients were randomly assigned to direct endovascular thrombectomy (n=148) or bridging therapy (n=147). Functional independence occurred in 80 (55%) of 146 patients in the direct thrombectomy group and 89 (61%) of 147 patients in the bridging therapy group (intention-to-treat risk difference -0·051, two-sided 95% CI -0·160 to 0·059; per-protocol risk difference -0·062, two-sided 95% CI -0·173 to 0·049). Safety outcomes were similar between groups, with symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage occurring in two (1%) of 146 patients in the direct group and one (1%) of 147 patients in the bridging group (adjusted odds ratio 1·70, 95% CI 0·22-13·04) and death in 22 (15%) of 146 patients in the direct group and 24 (16%) of 147 patients in the bridging group (adjusted odds ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·46-1·84)., Interpretation: We did not show non-inferiority of direct endovascular thrombectomy compared with bridging therapy. The additional information from our study should inform guidelines to recommend bridging therapy as standard treatment., Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Stryker USA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AKC received webinar honoraria from Medtronic and educational honoraria from Stryker. BY received conference honoraria and institutional research grants from Medtronic and Stryker. BS was an unpaid member on the New South Wales Medical Board. GAD received grants from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. GAD was on the advisory boards of Allergan and Argenica; received honoraria from Amgen; was on the data safety monitoring board of the STOP-MSU and EXTEND group of trials; was on the steering committee of DIRECT-SAFE; was shareholder in Argenica Therapeutics; and was on the board or committee of the Australian Stroke Alliance, Menzies Research Institute, Argenica Therapeutics, and the Colonial Foundation. MWP received payment to attend meetings by Boehringer Ingelheim. PJM received conference honoraria and institutional research grants from Medtronic and Stryker. SMD received grants from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; received payment for participating on advisory boards of Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and CSL Behring; received speaker's honoraria from Amgen; was a member of the data safety monitoring board of the SELECT-2 trial; was on the steering committee of the DIRECT-SAFE trial and EXTEND group of trials; and was an unpaid cochair of the Australian Stroke Alliance and unpaid trustee of the RMH Neuroscience Foundation. TJK received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)