Search

To explore the differences among grades of recanalization on outcomes of endovascular treatment for acute anterior large vessel occlusion with small infarct core beyond the 6-hour time window. Patients beyond the 6-hour time window with Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score >7 were retrospectively enrolled from the endovascular treatment for acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke (ACTUAL) registry. They were divided into 3 groups according to the degree of recanalization: modified treatment in cerebral infarction (mTICI) 0–2a, 2b, and 3. We compared the differences of outcomes among groups on modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage within 72 hours, and mortality. A total of 101 patients were enrolled. Median time from onset to groin puncture was 415 minutes (interquartile range: 387–497 minutes). Favorable functional outcomes were significantly better in patients with successful recanalization than in patients with failed recanalization (mTICI 0–2a, 22.7% [5/22]; mTICI 2b, 48.0% [12/25]; and mTICI 3, 61.1% [33/54]; trend P = 0.01). Complete recanalization (mTICI 3) (odds ratio, 5.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.71–16.66; P = 0.004) was associated with good functional outcome. Mortality was different among groups at 90 days (mTICI 0–2a, 36.4% [8/22]; mTICI 2b, 0, [0/25]; P = 0.001; mTICI 0–2a, 36.4% [8/22]; mTICI 3, 9.3% [5/54]; P = 0.008; and mTICI 2b, 0, [0/25]; mTICI 3, 9.3% [5/54]; P = 0.173). There were no significant differences of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage among groups (mTICI 0–2a, 22.7% [5/22]; mTICI 2b, 12.0% [3/25]; and mTICI 3, 9.3% [5/54]; P = 0.28). For acute anterior circulation stroke patients, who were beyond the 6-hour time window, yet with small ischemic core, complete recanalization following endovascular treatment may play the most important role on clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variations by hospital and region in the selection of an early invasive strategy (EIS) after non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in patients with high-risk criteria are unknown. We evaluated the data of 7037 patients with NSTEMI from 20 hospitals of 3 regions from the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry–National Institute of Health database. We used hierarchical generalized linear mixed-models to estimate region- and hospital-level variation in the selection of an EIS after adjusting for patient-level high-risk criteria. We explored the variation using the median rate ratio (MRR), which estimates the relative difference in the risk ratios of two hypothetically identical patients at two different sites. An EIS was selected in 84.4% of patients. At the hospital level, the median selection rate was 80.4%. At the region level, the median selection rate was 74.9% in the east region, 81.3% in the north region, and 83.9% in the west region, respectively. After adjusting for patient-level covariates, we found significant hospital- (MRR 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74–3.03) and region-level (MRR 1.88, 95%CI: 1.26–5.44) variation in the selection of an EIS. Among patient-level factors, male sex, ongoing chest pain, history of coronary artery disease or acute heart failure, and GRACE risk score > 140 were independently associated with the selection of an EIS. We observed significant hospital- and region-level variation in the selection of an EIS after NSTEMI in high-risk patients. Quality improvement efforts are required to standardize decision making and to improve clinical outcomes. • There is significant hospital- and region-level variation in early invasive strategy selection. • An early conservative strategy is often chosen when an early invasive strategy would provide more benefit. • Site-level variation reflects that there is significant undertreatment for high-risk patients that could worsen clinical outcome. • Quality improvement efforts are required to standardize decision making and improve clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous randomised trials have shown an overwhelming benefit of mechanical thrombectomy for treating patients with stroke caused by large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation. Whether endovascular treatment is beneficial for vertebrobasilar artery occlusion remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of acute strokes due to vertebrobasilar artery occlusion.Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial, with blinded outcome assessment of thrombectomy in patients presenting within 8 h of vertebrobasilar occlusion at 28 centres in China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to endovascular therapy plus standard medical therapy (intervention group) or standard medical therapy alone (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer-generated and stratified by participating centres. Allocation concealment was implemented by use of sealed envelopes. The primary outcome was a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 3 or lower (indicating ability to walk unassisted) at 90 days, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary safety outcome was mortality at 90 days. Secondary safety endpoints included the rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, device-related complications, and other severe adverse events. The BEST trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02441556.Findings: Between April 27, 2015, and Sept 27, 2017, we assessed 288 patients for eligibility. The trial was terminated early after 131 patients had been randomly assigned (66 patients to the intervention group and 65 to the control group) because of high crossover rate and poor recruitment. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with mRS 0-3 at 90 days according to treatment (28 [42%] of 66 patients in the intervention group vs 21 [32%] of 65 in the control group; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·74, 95% CI 0·81-3·74). Secondary prespecified analyses of the primary outcome, done to assess the effect of crossovers, showed higher rates of mRS 0-3 at 90 days in patients who actually received the intervention compared with those who received standard medical therapy alone in both per-protocol (28 [44%] of 63 patients with intervention vs 13 [25%] of 51 with standard therapy; adjusted OR 2·90, 95% CI 1·20-7·03) and as-treated (36 [47%] of 77 patients with intervention vs 13 [24%] of 54 with standard therapy; 3·02, 1·31-7·00) populations. The 90-day mortality was similar between groups (22 [33%] of 66 patients in the intervention vs 25 [38%] of 65 in the control group; p=0·54) despite a numerically higher prevalence of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in the intervention group.Interpretation: There was no evidence of a difference in favourable outcomes of patients receiving endovascular therapy compared with those receiving standard medical therapy alone. Results might have been confounded by loss of equipoise over the course of the trial, resulting in poor adherence to the assigned study treatment and a reduced sample size due to the early termination of the study.Funding: Jiangsu Provincial Special Program of Medical Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]