The smoking paradox in ischemic stroke patients treated with intra-arterial thrombolysis in combination with mechanical thrombectomy-VISTA-Endovascular.

Background: The smoking-paradox of a better outcome in ischemic stroke patients who smoke may be due to increased efficacy of thrombolysis. We investigated the effect of smoking on outcome following endovascular therapy (EVT) with mechanical thrombectomy alone versus in combination with intra-arterial (IA-) thrombolysis.
Methods: The primary endpoint was defined by three-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS). We performed a generalized linear model and reported relative risks (RR) for smoking (adjustment for age, sex, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, stroke severity, time to EVT) in patient data stemming from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive-Endovascular database.
Results: Among 1,497 patients, 740(49.4%) were randomized to EVT; among EVT patients, 524(35.0%) received mechanical thrombectomy alone and 216(14.4%) received it in combination with IA-thrombolysis. Smokers (N = 396) had lower mRS scores (mean 2.9 vs. 3.2; p = 0.02) and mortality rates (10% vs. 17.3%; p<0.001) in univariate analysis. In all patients and in patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy alone, smoking had no effect on outcome in regression analyses. In patients who received IA-thrombolysis (N = 216;14%), smoking had an adjusted RR of 1.65 for an mRS≤1 (95%CI 0.77-3.55). Treatment with IA-thrombolysis itself led to reduced RR for favorable outcome (adjusted RR 0.30); interaction analysis of IA-thrombolysis and smoking revealed that non-smokers with IA-thrombolysis had mRS≤2 in 47 cases (30%, adjusted RR 0.53 [0.41-0.69]) while smokers with IA-thrombolysis had mRS≤2 in 23 cases (38%, adjusted RR 0.61 [0.42-0.87]).
Conclusions: Smokers had no clear clinical benefit from EVT that incorporates IA-thrombolysis.
Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: JBF reports consulting and advisory board fees from Abbvie, AC Immune, Artemida, BioClinica, Biogen, BMS, Brainomix, Cerevast, Daiichi-Sankyo, EISAI, Guerbet, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Julius Clinical, jung diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Tau Rx, all outside of the submitted work. M. Endres reports grants from Bayer and fees paid to the Charité from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi, Covidien, and Novartis, all outside of the submitted work. DSL reports research funding as an imaging core lab from Cerenovus, Genentech, Medtronic and Stryker. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.