Yang P, Song L, Zhang Y, Zhang X, Chen X, Li Y, Sun L, Wan Y, Billot L, Li Q, Ren X, Shen H, Zhang L, Li Z, Xing P, Zhang Y, Zhang P, Hua W, Shen F, Zhou Y, Tian B, Chen W, Han H, Zhang L, Xu C, Li T, Peng Y, Yue X, Chen S, Wen C, Wan S, Yin C, Wei M, Shu H, Nan G, Liu S, Liu W, Cai Y, Sui Y, Chen M, Zhou Y, Zuo Q, Dai D, Zhao R, Li Q, Huang Q, Xu Y, Deng B, Wu T, Lu J, Wang X, Parsons MW, Butcher K, Campbell B, Robinson TG, Goyal M, Dippel D, Roos Y, Majoie C, Wang L, Wang Y, Liu J, and Anderson CS
Background: The optimum systolic blood pressure after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke is uncertain. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of blood pressure lowering treatment according to more intensive versus less intensive treatment targets in patients with elevated blood pressure after reperfusion with endovascular treatment., Methods: We conducted an open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial at 44 tertiary-level hospitals in China. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had persistently elevated systolic blood pressure (≥140 mm Hg for >10 min) following successful reperfusion with endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke from any intracranial large-vessel occlusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1, by a central, web-based program with a minimisation algorithm) to more intensive treatment (systolic blood pressure target <120 mm Hg) or less intensive treatment (target 140-180 mm Hg) to be achieved within 1 h and sustained for 72 h. The primary efficacy outcome was functional recovery, assessed according to the distribution in scores on the modified Rankin scale (range 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. Analyses were done according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Efficacy analyses were performed with proportional odds logistic regression with adjustment for treatment allocation as a fixed effect, site as a random effect, and baseline prognostic factors, and included all randomly assigned patients who provided consent and had available data for the primary outcome. The safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients. The treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04140110, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, 1900027785; recruitment has stopped at all participating centres., Findings: Between July 20, 2020, and March 7, 2022, 821 patients were randomly assigned. The trial was stopped after review of the outcome data on June 22, 2022, due to persistent efficacy and safety concerns. 407 participants were assigned to the more intensive treatment group and 409 to the less intensive treatment group, of whom 404 patients in the more intensive treatment group and 406 patients in the less intensive treatment group had primary outcome data available. The likelihood of poor functional outcome was greater in the more intensive treatment group than the less intensive treatment group (common OR 1·37 [95% CI 1·07-1·76]). Compared with the less intensive treatment group, the more intensive treatment group had more early neurological deterioration (common OR 1·53 [95% 1·18-1·97]) and major disability at 90 days (OR 2·07 [95% CI 1·47-2·93]) but there were no significant differences in symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events or mortality between groups., Interpretation: Intensive control of systolic blood pressure to lower than 120 mm Hg should be avoided to prevent compromising the functional recovery of patients who have received endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke due to intracranial large-vessel occlusion., Funding: The Shanghai Hospital Development Center; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; Medical Research Futures Fund of Australia; China Stroke Prevention; Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality; Takeda China; Hasten Biopharmaceutic; Genesis Medtech; Penumbra., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PY reports funding from Shanghai Changhai Hospital and honoraria for lectures from Stryker, Medtronic, Microvention, and Cerenovus. LS reports grants and speaker fees from Takeda China. CM reports grants from the Dutch Heart Foundation, the European Commission, Stryker, and Healthcare Evaluation Netherlands. MG reports grants from NoNo, Medtronic, and Cerenovus; and consulting fees from Medtronic, Microvention, Stryker, and Mentice; and is the inventor and receives royalties for a novel imaging system for the diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke (GE Healthcare systems licensing agreement; patents US9324143 and US 9486176) and a device for accessing intracranial vessels (Microvention licensing agreement; US 10,456,552). Jianmin Liu reports grants from the China Stroke Prevention Project and the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality. CSA reports grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Medical Research Futures Fund (MRFF) of Australia, the UK Medical Research Council, Penumbra, and Takeda China; and is a board member for the World Stroke Organisation and the Editor-in-Chief of Cerebrovascular Disease. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)