Endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke with a fully radiopaque retriever: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveThe Neurohawk retriever is a new fully radiopaque retriever. A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted to compare the Neurohawk and the Solitaire FR in terms of safety and efficacy. In order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) larger vessel occlusion (LVO), a sub-analysis was performed.MethodsAcute ischemic stroke patients aged 18–80 years with LVO in the anterior circulation were randomly assigned to undergo thrombectomy with either the Neurohawk or the Solitaire FR. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) rate by the allocated retriever. A relevant non-inferiority margin was 12.5%. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality within 90 days. Secondary endpoints included first-pass effect (FPE), modified FPE, and favorable outcomes at 90 days. In subgroup analysis, the patients were divided into the ICAD group and non-ICAD group according to etiology, and baseline characteristics, angiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared.ResultsA total of 232 patients were involved in this analysis (115 patients in the Neurohawk group and 117 in the Solitaire group). The rates of successful reperfusion with the allocated retriever were 88.70% in the Neurohawk group and 90.60% in the Solitaire group (95%CI of the difference, −9.74% to 5.94%; p = 0.867). There were similar results in FPE and mFPE in both groups. The rate of sICH seemed higher in the Solitaire group (13.16% vs. 7.02%, p = 0.124). All-cause mortality and favorable outcome rates were comparable as well. In subgroup analysis, 58 patients were assigned to the ICAD group and the remaining 174 to the non-ICAD group. The final successful reperfusion and favorable outcome rates showed no statistically significant differences in two groups. Mortality within 90 days was relatively lower in the ICAD group (6.90% vs. 17.24%; p = 0.054).ConclusionThe Neurohawk retriever is non-inferior to the Solitaire FR in the mechanical thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion-acute ischemic stroke (LVO-AIS). The sub-analysis suggested that endovascular treatment including thrombectomy with the retriever and essential rescue angioplasty is effective and safe in AIS patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease-larger vessel occlusion (ICAD-LVO).Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04995757, number: NCT04995757

Adjunct Intraarterial or Intravenous Tirofiban Versus No Tirofiban After Successful Recanalization of Basilar Artery Occlusion Stroke: The BASILAR Registry.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of patients who achieve successful reperfusion do not achieve functional independence. The present study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes and safety of intraarterial or intravenous tirofiban as adjunct therapy in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion who had achieved successful recanalization with endovascular treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the national, prospective BASILAR (Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study) registry, 458 patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into 3 groups based on tirofiban administration (no tirofiban, n=262; intravenous tirofiban, n=101; intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban, n=95). Their clinical outcomes were compared with 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were obtained by logistic regression models and propensity score matching. Safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH, and mortality. Among 458 included patients, 184 (40.2%) achieved a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-3). There were no differences between the intravenous tirofiban group and the no tirofiban group in terms of safety and clinical outcomes (all P>0.05). Compared with the no tirofiban group, the intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban group had higher odds of 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 3 (aOR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.30-4.64], P=0.006) and lower 3-month mortality (aOR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.19-0.71], P=0.002) without an increase in any ICH (aOR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.09-1.01], P=0.07) or symptomatic ICH (aOR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.03-0.90], P=0.05). Similar results of intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban on improving clinical outcomes were detected in novel cohorts constructed by propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS: Intraarterial+intravenous rather than intravenous tirofiban improved clinical outcomes without increasing the frequency of symptomatic ICH among patients with basilar artery occlusion after successful endovascular treatment. Further studies are needed to delineate the roles of intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban in patients with basilar artery occlusion receiving endovascular treatment

Adjunct Intraarterial or Intravenous Tirofiban Versus No Tirofiban After Successful Recanalization of Basilar Artery Occlusion Stroke: The BASILAR Registry

Background Approximately half of patients who achieve successful reperfusion do not achieve functional independence. The present study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes and safety of intraarterial or intravenous tirofiban as adjunct therapy in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion who had achieved successful recanalization with endovascular treatment. Methods and Results In the national, prospective BASILAR (Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study) registry, 458 patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into 3 groups based on tirofiban administration (no tirofiban, n=262; intravenous tirofiban, n=101; intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban, n=95). Their clinical outcomes were compared with 90‐day modified Rankin Scale scores. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were obtained by logistic regression models and propensity score matching. Safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH, and mortality. Among 458 included patients, 184 (40.2%) achieved a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–3). There were no differences between the intravenous tirofiban group and the no tirofiban group in terms of safety and clinical outcomes (all P>0.05). Compared with the no tirofiban group, the intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban group had higher odds of 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 3 (aOR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.30–4.64], P=0.006) and lower 3‐month mortality (aOR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.19–0.71], P=0.002) without an increase in any ICH (aOR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.09–1.01], P=0.07) or symptomatic ICH (aOR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.03–0.90], P=0.05). Similar results of intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban on improving clinical outcomes were detected in novel cohorts constructed by propensity score matching. Conclusions Intraarterial+intravenous rather than intravenous tirofiban improved clinical outcomes without increasing the frequency of symptomatic ICH among patients with basilar artery occlusion after successful endovascular treatment. Further studies are needed to delineate the roles of intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban in patients with basilar artery occlusion receiving endovascular treatment

Role of Circular RNAs in Atherosclerosis through Regulation of Inflammation, Cell Proliferation, Migration, and Apoptosis: Focus on Atherosclerotic Cerebrovascular Disease

Atherosclerosis (AS) is a disease dangerous to human health and the main pathological cause of ischemic cardiovascular diseases. Although its pathogenesis is not fully understood, numerous basic and clinical studies have shown that AS is a chronic inflammatory disease existing in all stages of atherogenesis. It may be a common link or pathway in the pathogenesis of multiple atherogenic factors. Inflammation is associated with AS complications, such as plaque rupture and ischemic cerebral infarction. In addition to inflammation, apoptosis plays an important role in AS. Apoptosis is a type of programmed cell death, and different apoptotic cells have different or even opposite roles in the process of AS. Unlike linear RNA, circular RNA (circRNA) a covalently closed circular non-coding RNA, is stable and can sponge miRNA, which can affect the stages of AS by regulating downstream pathways. Ultimately, circRNAs play very important roles in AS by regulating inflammation, apoptosis, and some other mechanisms. The study of circular RNAs can provide new ideas for the prediction, prevention, and treatment of AS

Stroke patients with faster core growth have greater benefit from endovascular therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore whether the therapeutic benefit of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) was mediated by core growth rate. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion and receiving reperfusion treatment, either EVT or intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), within 4.5 hours of stroke onset. Patients were divided into 2 groups: EVT versus IVT only patients (who had no access to EVT). Core growth rate was estimated by the acute core volume on perfusion computed tomography divided by the time from stroke onset to perfusion computed tomography. The primary clinical outcome was good outcome defined by 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2. Tissue outcome was the final infarction volume. RESULTS: A total of 806 patients were included, 429 in the EVT group (recanalization rate of 61.6%) and 377 in the IVT only group (recanalization rate of 44.7%). The treatment effect of EVT versus IVT only was mediated by core growth rate, showing a significant interaction between EVT treatment and core growth rate in predicting good clinical outcome (interaction odds ratio=1.03 [1.01–1.05], P=0.007) and final infarct volume (interaction odds ratio=-0.44 [-0.87 to -0.01], P=0.047). For patients with fast core growth of >25 mL/h, EVT treatment (compared with IVT only) increased the odds of good clinical outcome (adjusted odds ratio=3.62 [1.21–10.76], P=0.021) and resulted in smaller final infarction volume (37.5 versus 73.9 mL, P=0.012). For patients with slow core growth of <15 mL/h, there were no significant differences between the EVT and the IVT only group in either good clinical outcome (adjusted odds ratio=1.44 [0.97–2.14], P=0.070) or final infarction volume (22.6 versus 21.9 mL, P=0.551). CONCLUSIONS: Fast core growth was associated with greater benefit from EVT compared with IVT in the early <4.5-hour time window

Time to Treatment with Intravenous Thrombolysis before Thrombectomy and Functional Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke:A Meta-Analysis

Importance: The benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke declines with longer time from symptom onset, but it is not known whether a similar time dependency exists for IVT followed by thrombectomy. Objective: To determine whether the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone decreases with treatment time from symptom onset. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual participant data meta-analysis from 6 randomized clinical trials comparing IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Enrollment was between January 2017 and July 2021 at 190 sites in 15 countries. All participants were eligible for IVT and thrombectomy and presented directly at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers (n = 2334). For this meta-analysis, only patients with an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion were included (n = 2313). Exposure: Interval from stroke symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and treatment with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome analysis tested whether the association between the allocated treatment (IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone) and disability at 90 days (7-level modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]; minimal clinically important difference for the rates of mRS scores of 0-2: 1.3%) varied with times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT. Results: In 2313 participants (1160 in IVT plus thrombectomy group vs 1153 in thrombectomy alone group; median age, 71 [IQR, 62 to 78] years; 44.3% were female), the median time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was 2 hours 28 minutes (IQR, 1 hour 46 minutes to 3 hours 17 minutes). There was a statistically significant interaction between the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and the association of allocated treatment with functional outcomes (ratio of adjusted common odds ratio [OR] per 1-hour delay, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.97], P =.02 for interaction). The benefit of IVT plus thrombectomy decreased with longer times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT (adjusted common OR for a 1-step mRS score shift toward improvement, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.96] at 1 hour, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.49] at 2 hours, and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.23] at 3 hours). For a mRS score of 0, 1, or 2, the predicted absolute risk difference was 9% (95% CI, 3% to 16%) at 1 hour, 5% (95% CI, 1% to 9%) at 2 hours, and 1% (95% CI, -3% to 5%) at 3 hours. After 2 hours 20 minutes, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy was not statistically significant and the point estimate crossed the null association at 3 hours 14 minutes. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients presenting at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone was time dependent and statistically significant only if the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was short..</p

Time to Treatment with Intravenous Thrombolysis before Thrombectomy and Functional Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke:A Meta-Analysis

Importance: The benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke declines with longer time from symptom onset, but it is not known whether a similar time dependency exists for IVT followed by thrombectomy. Objective: To determine whether the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone decreases with treatment time from symptom onset. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual participant data meta-analysis from 6 randomized clinical trials comparing IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Enrollment was between January 2017 and July 2021 at 190 sites in 15 countries. All participants were eligible for IVT and thrombectomy and presented directly at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers (n = 2334). For this meta-analysis, only patients with an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion were included (n = 2313). Exposure: Interval from stroke symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and treatment with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome analysis tested whether the association between the allocated treatment (IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone) and disability at 90 days (7-level modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]; minimal clinically important difference for the rates of mRS scores of 0-2: 1.3%) varied with times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT. Results: In 2313 participants (1160 in IVT plus thrombectomy group vs 1153 in thrombectomy alone group; median age, 71 [IQR, 62 to 78] years; 44.3% were female), the median time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was 2 hours 28 minutes (IQR, 1 hour 46 minutes to 3 hours 17 minutes). There was a statistically significant interaction between the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and the association of allocated treatment with functional outcomes (ratio of adjusted common odds ratio [OR] per 1-hour delay, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.97], P =.02 for interaction). The benefit of IVT plus thrombectomy decreased with longer times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT (adjusted common OR for a 1-step mRS score shift toward improvement, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.96] at 1 hour, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.49] at 2 hours, and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.23] at 3 hours). For a mRS score of 0, 1, or 2, the predicted absolute risk difference was 9% (95% CI, 3% to 16%) at 1 hour, 5% (95% CI, 1% to 9%) at 2 hours, and 1% (95% CI, -3% to 5%) at 3 hours. After 2 hours 20 minutes, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy was not statistically significant and the point estimate crossed the null association at 3 hours 14 minutes. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients presenting at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone was time dependent and statistically significant only if the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was short..</p

Data_Sheet_1_Endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke with a fully radiopaque retriever: A randomized controlled trial.zip

ObjectiveThe Neurohawk retriever is a new fully radiopaque retriever. A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted to compare the Neurohawk and the Solitaire FR in terms of safety and efficacy. In order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) larger vessel occlusion (LVO), a sub-analysis was performed.MethodsAcute ischemic stroke patients aged 18–80 years with LVO in the anterior circulation were randomly assigned to undergo thrombectomy with either the Neurohawk or the Solitaire FR. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) rate by the allocated retriever. A relevant non-inferiority margin was 12.5%. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality within 90 days. Secondary endpoints included first-pass effect (FPE), modified FPE, and favorable outcomes at 90 days. In subgroup analysis, the patients were divided into the ICAD group and non-ICAD group according to etiology, and baseline characteristics, angiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared.ResultsA total of 232 patients were involved in this analysis (115 patients in the Neurohawk group and 117 in the Solitaire group). The rates of successful reperfusion with the allocated retriever were 88.70% in the Neurohawk group and 90.60% in the Solitaire group (95%CI of the difference, −9.74% to 5.94%; p = 0.867). There were similar results in FPE and mFPE in both groups. The rate of sICH seemed higher in the Solitaire group (13.16% vs. 7.02%, p = 0.124). All-cause mortality and favorable outcome rates were comparable as well. In subgroup analysis, 58 patients were assigned to the ICAD group and the remaining 174 to the non-ICAD group. The final successful reperfusion and favorable outcome rates showed no statistically significant differences in two groups. Mortality within 90 days was relatively lower in the ICAD group (6.90% vs. 17.24%; p = 0.054).ConclusionThe Neurohawk retriever is non-inferior to the Solitaire FR in the mechanical thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion-acute ischemic stroke (LVO-AIS). The sub-analysis suggested that endovascular treatment including thrombectomy with the retriever and essential rescue angioplasty is effective and safe in AIS patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease-larger vessel occlusion (ICAD-LVO).Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04995757, number: NCT04995757.</p

Data_Sheet_3_Endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke with a fully radiopaque retriever: A randomized controlled trial.docx

ObjectiveThe Neurohawk retriever is a new fully radiopaque retriever. A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted to compare the Neurohawk and the Solitaire FR in terms of safety and efficacy. In order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) larger vessel occlusion (LVO), a sub-analysis was performed.MethodsAcute ischemic stroke patients aged 18–80 years with LVO in the anterior circulation were randomly assigned to undergo thrombectomy with either the Neurohawk or the Solitaire FR. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) rate by the allocated retriever. A relevant non-inferiority margin was 12.5%. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality within 90 days. Secondary endpoints included first-pass effect (FPE), modified FPE, and favorable outcomes at 90 days. In subgroup analysis, the patients were divided into the ICAD group and non-ICAD group according to etiology, and baseline characteristics, angiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared.ResultsA total of 232 patients were involved in this analysis (115 patients in the Neurohawk group and 117 in the Solitaire group). The rates of successful reperfusion with the allocated retriever were 88.70% in the Neurohawk group and 90.60% in the Solitaire group (95%CI of the difference, −9.74% to 5.94%; p = 0.867). There were similar results in FPE and mFPE in both groups. The rate of sICH seemed higher in the Solitaire group (13.16% vs. 7.02%, p = 0.124). All-cause mortality and favorable outcome rates were comparable as well. In subgroup analysis, 58 patients were assigned to the ICAD group and the remaining 174 to the non-ICAD group. The final successful reperfusion and favorable outcome rates showed no statistically significant differences in two groups. Mortality within 90 days was relatively lower in the ICAD group (6.90% vs. 17.24%; p = 0.054).ConclusionThe Neurohawk retriever is non-inferior to the Solitaire FR in the mechanical thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion-acute ischemic stroke (LVO-AIS). The sub-analysis suggested that endovascular treatment including thrombectomy with the retriever and essential rescue angioplasty is effective and safe in AIS patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease-larger vessel occlusion (ICAD-LVO).Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04995757, number: NCT04995757.</p

Data_Sheet_2_Endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke with a fully radiopaque retriever: A randomized controlled trial.zip

ObjectiveThe Neurohawk retriever is a new fully radiopaque retriever. A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted to compare the Neurohawk and the Solitaire FR in terms of safety and efficacy. In order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) larger vessel occlusion (LVO), a sub-analysis was performed.MethodsAcute ischemic stroke patients aged 18–80 years with LVO in the anterior circulation were randomly assigned to undergo thrombectomy with either the Neurohawk or the Solitaire FR. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) rate by the allocated retriever. A relevant non-inferiority margin was 12.5%. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality within 90 days. Secondary endpoints included first-pass effect (FPE), modified FPE, and favorable outcomes at 90 days. In subgroup analysis, the patients were divided into the ICAD group and non-ICAD group according to etiology, and baseline characteristics, angiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared.ResultsA total of 232 patients were involved in this analysis (115 patients in the Neurohawk group and 117 in the Solitaire group). The rates of successful reperfusion with the allocated retriever were 88.70% in the Neurohawk group and 90.60% in the Solitaire group (95%CI of the difference, −9.74% to 5.94%; p = 0.867). There were similar results in FPE and mFPE in both groups. The rate of sICH seemed higher in the Solitaire group (13.16% vs. 7.02%, p = 0.124). All-cause mortality and favorable outcome rates were comparable as well. In subgroup analysis, 58 patients were assigned to the ICAD group and the remaining 174 to the non-ICAD group. The final successful reperfusion and favorable outcome rates showed no statistically significant differences in two groups. Mortality within 90 days was relatively lower in the ICAD group (6.90% vs. 17.24%; p = 0.054).ConclusionThe Neurohawk retriever is non-inferior to the Solitaire FR in the mechanical thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion-acute ischemic stroke (LVO-AIS). The sub-analysis suggested that endovascular treatment including thrombectomy with the retriever and essential rescue angioplasty is effective and safe in AIS patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease-larger vessel occlusion (ICAD-LVO).Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04995757, number: NCT04995757.</p