Search

Background: While mechanical thrombectomy is considered standard of care for large vessel occlusions, scientific evidence to support treatment for distal and medium vessel occlusions remains scarce., Purpose: To evaluate feasibility, safety, and outcomes in patients with low National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for treatment of distal medium vessel occlusions., Materials and Methods: Retrospective data review and analysis of prospectively maintained databases at 41 academic centers in North America, Asia, and Europe between January 2017 and January 2022. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups with low stroke scale score (≤ 6) versus and higher stroke scale scores (> 6). Propensity score matching using the optimal pair matching method and 1:1 ratio was performed., Results: Data were collected on a total of 1068 patients. After propensity score matching, there were a total of 676 patients included in the final analysis, with 338 patients in each group. High successful reperfusion rates were seen in both groups, 90.2% in ≤ 6 and 88.7% in the > 6 stroke scale groups. The frequency of excellent and good functional outcome was seen more common in low versus higher stroke scale score patients (64.5% and 81.1% versus 39.3% and 58.6%, respectively). The 90-day mortality rate observed in the ≤ 6 stroke scale group was 5.3% versus 13.3% in the > 6 stroke scale group., Conclusion: Mechanical thrombectomy in distal and medium vessel occlusions, specifically in patients with low stroke scale scores is feasible, though it may not necessarily improve outcomes over IVT., (© 2024. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has revolutionized the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO), but its efficacy and safety in medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) remain less explored. This multicenter, retrospective study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes of vessel perforations (confirmed by extravasation during an angiographic series) during MT for AIS caused by MeVO., Methods: Data were collected from 37 academic centers across North America, Asia, and Europe between September 2017 and July 2021. A total of 1373 AIS patients with MeVO underwent MT. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed., Results: The incidence of vessel perforation was 4.8% (66/1373). Notably, our analysis indicates variations in perforation rates across different arterial segments: 8.9% in M3 segments, 4.3% in M2 segments, and 8.3% in A2 segments ( p  = 0.612). Patients with perforation had significantly worse outcomes, with lower rates of favorable angiographic outcomes (TICI 2c-3: 23% vs 58.9%, p  < 0.001; TICI 2b-3: 56.5% vs 88.3%, p  < 0.001). Functional outcomes were also worse in the perforation group (mRS 0-1 at 3 months: 22.7% vs 36.6%, p  = 0.031; mRS 0-2 at 3 months: 28.8% vs 53.9%, p  < 0.001). Mortality was higher in the perforation group (30.3% vs 16.8%, p  = 0.008)., Conclusion: This study reveals that while the occurrence of vessel perforation in MT for AIS due to MeVO is relatively rare, it is associated with poor functional outcomes and higher mortality. The findings highlight the need for increased caution and specialized training in performing MT for MeVO. Further prospective research is required for risk mitigation strategies., 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. Regenhardt serves on a DSMB for a trial sponsored by Rapid Medical, serves as site PI for studies sponsored by Penumbra and Microvention, and receives stroke research grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology, and Heitman Stroke Foundation. Dr. Guenego reports consultancy for Rapid Medical and Phenox, not directly related to the present work. Prof. Clarençon reports conflicts of interest with Medtronic, Balt Extrusion (consultant), ClinSearch (core lab), Penumbra, Stryker (payment for reading), and Artedrone (Board); all not directly related to the present work. Dr. Henninger received support from NINDS NS131756, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Liebeskind is consultant as Imaging Core Lab to Cerenovus, Genentech, Medtronic, Stryker, Rapid Medical. Dr. Nguyen reports advisory board with Idorsia. Dr. Yeo reports Advisory work for AstraZeneca, Substantial support from NMRC Singapore and is a medical advisor for See-mode, Cortiro, and Sunbird Bio, with equity in Ceroflo. All unrelated to the present work. Dr. Griessenauer reports a proctoring agreement with Medtronic and research funding by Penumbra. Dr. Marnat reports conflicts of interest with Microvention Europe, Stryker Neurovascular, Balt (consulting), Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Phenox (paid lectures), all not directly related to the present work. Pr Sibon reports conflict of interest with Medtronic, Sanofi, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, BMS-Pfizer (board and paid lectures), all not directly related to the present work. Dr. Yedavalli is a consultant for RAPID (Ischemaview, Menlo Park, CA). Dr. Vagal is a consultant for Viz AI. She is also PI of Imaging core lab for ENDOLOW study funded by Cerenovus (monies go to the institution). Dr. Gopinathan reports conflicts of interest with Microvention, Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, BD, Penumbra (paid lectures, workshops, and proctoring), all not directly related to the present work. Dr. Bernstock has an equity position in Treovir Inc., an oHSV clinical stage company and UpFront Diagnostics. JDB is also on the Centile Bioscience and NeuroX1 boards of scientific advisors.

Background: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation., Methods: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments., Results: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45-1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28-2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35-5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53-20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18-0.88]; P interaction =0.009)., Conclusions: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings., Competing Interests: Disclosures Disclosures provided by Dr Nguyen in compliance with American Heart Association annual Journal Editor Disclosure Questionnaire are available at https://www.ahajournals.org/editor-coi-disclosures. Dr Arnold reports compensation from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Covidien, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Amgen for consultant services. Dr Lester reports a provisional patent for Methods and compositions for disrupting tau aggregates. Dr Touze reports compensation from Elsevier for other services and employment by Caen. J.E. Kaufman reports grants from Goldschmidt Jacobson-Stiftung. Dr Traenka reports travel support from Bayer Healthcare. Dr Aguiar de Sousa reports compensation from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Fundação Bial for other services; compensation from the University of British Columbia for data and safety monitoring services; compensation from Organon & Co for consultant services. Dr Rosa reports grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation. Dr Field reports compensation from HLS Therapeutics, AstraZeneca Canada, and Roche for consultant services; service as a board member for Destine Health; and compensation from the Canadian Medical Protective Association for expert witness services; and grants from Bayer. Dr Leker reports compensation from Medtronic, Ischemaview, Bayer, Abbott Diabetes Care, Biogen, Janssen Biotech, and Boehringer Ingelheim for other services. Dr Nolte reports compensation from Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals for consultant services; and compensation from AstraZeneca, Abbott Canada, Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen, Novartis, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Deutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislaufforschung, and Novartis for other services. Dr Poppe reports grants from Foundation Brain Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Stryker; and compensation from Roche for other services. Dr Liebeskind reports compensation from Medtronic, Genentech, Cerenovus, Stryker, and Rapid Medical Ltd, for consultant services. B. Mac Grory reports grants from the National Institutes of Health; employment by Duke University Medical Center; compensation from Bayer for other services; grants from the American Heart Association, Duke Bass Connections, and the Duke Office of Physician Scientist Development. Dr Al Kasab reports compensation from Stryker for other services and employment by Medical University of South Carolina. Dr Kicielinski reports compensation from Stryker, Penumbra Inc, Medtronic, and MicroVention Inc, for other services; travel support from MicroVention Inc; and employment by Medical University of South Carolina and Elsevier. Dr de Havenon reports stock options in TitinKM and Certus; grants from the National Institutes of Health; and compensation from Novo Nordisk for consultant services. Dr Siegler reports grants from Philips and employment by the University of Chicago. Dr Willey reports compensation from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Abbott Fund for end point review committee services; compensation from Uptodate for other services; and compensation from the Abbott Laboratories for consultant services. Dr Sharma reports a provisional patent for a stroke etiology classifier algorithm and grants from the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. Dr Martins reports compensation from Pfizer, Medtronic, Servier Affaires Medicales, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Penumbra Inc, and Boehringer Ingelheim for other services. Dr Simpkins reports grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Stretz reports grants from Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr Furie reports compensation from Janssen Biotech for consultant services. The other authors report no conflicts