Search

Background: Aspirin and unfractionated heparin are often used during endovascular stroke treatment to improve reperfusion and outcomes. However, the effects and risks of anti-thrombotics for this indication are unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous aspirin, unfractionated heparin, both, or neither started during endovascular treatment in patients with ischaemic stroke. Methods: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design in 15 centres in the Netherlands. We enrolled adult patients (ie, ≥18 years) with ischaemic stroke due to an intracranial large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation in whom endovascular treatment could be initiated within 6 h of symptom onset. Eligible patients had a score of 2 or more on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and a CT or MRI ruling out intracranial haemorrhage. Randomisation was done using a web-based procedure with permuted blocks and stratified by centre. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either periprocedural intravenous aspirin (300 mg bolus) or no aspirin, and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive moderate-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 1250 IU/h for 6 h), low-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 500 IU/h for 6 h), or no unfractionated heparin. The primary outcome was the score on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was the main safety outcome. Analyses were based on intention to treat, and treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or common ORs, with adjustment for baseline prognostic factors. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN76741621. Findings: Between Jan 22, 2018, and Jan 27, 2021, we randomly assigned 663 patients; of whom, 628 (95%) provided deferred consent or died before consent could be asked and were included in the modified intention-to-tre

Background: Antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke but may also have a beneficial effect on functional outcome. The aim of this study is to compare safety and efficacy outcomes after endovascular treatment in patients with and without prior antiplatelet therapy. Methods: We analyzed patients registered in the MR CLEAN Registry between March 2014 and November 2017, for whom data on antiplatelet therapy were available. We used propensity score nearest-neighbor matching with replacement to balance the probability of receiving prior antiplatelet therapy between the prior antiplatelet therapy and no prior antiplatelet therapy group and adjusted for baseline prognostic factors to compare these groups. Primary outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Secondary outcomes were 90-day functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale), successful reperfusion (extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score ≥2B) and 90-day mortality. Results: Thirty percent (n = 937) of the 3154 patients were on prior antiplatelet therapy, who were matched to 477 patients not on prior antiplatelet therapy. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 74/937 (7.9%) patients on prior antiplatelet therapy and in 27/477 (5.6%) patients without prior antiplatelet therapy adjusted odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.86–2.49. No associations were found between prior antiplatelet therapy and functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.65–1.16), successful reperfusion (adjusted odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 0.77–1.97), or 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.86–1.54). Conclusion: We found no evidence of an association of prior antiplatelet therapy with the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular treatment, nor on functional outcome, reperfusion, or mortality. A substantial beneficial or detrimenta

PURPOSE The Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration was a concerted effort initiated in 2010 with the purpose to address relevant research questions about the effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). The collaboration also aims to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) and hence the name of the collaboration was changed from TRISP to EVA-TRISP. The methodology of the former TRISP registry for patients treated with IVT has already been published. This paper focuses on describing the EVT part of the registry. PARTICIPANTS All centres committed to collecting predefined variables on consecutive patients prospectively. We aim for accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt local databases to investigate novel research questions. Herein, we introduce the methodology of a recently constructed academic investigator-initiated open collaboration EVT registry built as an extension of an existing IVT registry in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). FINDINGS TO DATE Currently, the EVA-TRISP network includes 20 stroke centres with considerable expertise in EVT and maintenance of high-quality hospital-based registries. Following several successful randomised controlled trials (RCTs), many important clinical questions remain unanswered in the (EVT) field and some of them will unlikely be investigated in future RCTs. Prospective registries with high-quality data on EVT-treated patients may help answering some of these unanswered issues, especially on safety and efficacy of EVT in specific patient subgroups. FUTURE PLANS This collaborative effort aims at addressing clinically important questions on safety and efficacy of EVT in conditions not covered by RCTs. The TRISP registry generated substantial novel data supporting stroke physicians in their daily decision making considering IVT candidate patients. While providing observational data on EVT in daily clinical practice, our future findi

PURPOSE: The ThRombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration aims to address clinically relevant questions about safety and outcomes of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy. The findings can provide observational information on treatment of patients derived from everyday clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: TRISP is an open, investigator-driven collaborative research initiative of European stroke centres with expertise in treatment with revascularisation therapies and maintenance of hospital-based registries. All participating centres made a commitment to prospectively collect data on consecutive patients with stroke treated with IVT using standardised definitions of variables and outcomes, to assure accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt their local databases to answer novel research questions. FINDINGS TO DATE: Currently, TRISP comprises 18 centres and registers >10 000 IVT-treated patients. Prior TRISP projects provided evidence on the safety and functional outcome in relevant subgroups of patients who were excluded, under-represented or not specifically addressed in randomised controlled trials (ie, pre-existing disability, cervical artery dissections, stroke mimics, prior statin use), demonstrated deficits in organisation of acute stroke care (ie, IVT during non-working hours, effects of onset-to-door time on onset-to-needle time), evaluated the association between laboratory findings on outcome after IVT and served to develop risk estimation tools for prediction of haemorrhagic complications and functional outcome after IVT. FUTURE PLANS: Further TRISP projects to increase knowledge of the effect and safety of revascularisation therapies in acute stroke are ongoing. TRISP welcomes participation and project proposals of further centres fulfilling the outlined requirements. In the future, TRISP will be extended to include patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy.