Effect of First-Pass Reperfusion on Outcome After Endovascular Treatment for Ischemic Stroke

Background First-pass reperfusion (FPR) is associated with favorable outcome after endovascular treatment. It is unknown whether this effect is independent of patient characteristics and whether FPR has better outcomes compared with excellent reperfusion (Expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [eTICI] 2C-3) after multiple-passes reperfusion. We aimed to evaluate the association between FPR and outcome with adjustment for patient, imaging, and treatment characteristics to single out the contribution of FPR. Methods and Results FPR was defined as eTICI 2C-3 after 1 pass. Multivariable regression models were used to investigate characteristics associated with FPR and to investigate the effect of FPR on outcomes. We included 2686 patients of the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) Registry. Factors associated with FPR were as follows: history of hyperlipidemia (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10), middle cerebral artery versus intracranial carotid artery occlusion (adjusted OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16), and aspiration versus stent thrombectomy (adjusted OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11). Interventionist experience increased the likelihood of FPR (adjusted OR, 1.03 per 50 patients previously treated; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06). Adjusted for patient, imaging, and treatment characteristics, FPR remained associated with a better 24-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (-37%; 95% CI, -43% to -31%) and a better modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months (adjusted common OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.83-2.54) compared with no FPR (multiple-passes reperfusion+no excellent reperfusion), and compared with multiple-passes reperfusion alone (24-hour NIHSS score, (-23%; 95% CI, -31% to -14%), and mRS score (adjusted common OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.19-1.78)). Conclusions FPR compared with multiple-passes reperfusion is associated with favorable outcome, independently of patient, imaging, and treatment characteristics. Factors associated with FPR were the experience of the interventionist, history of hyperlipidemia, location of occluded artery, and use of an aspiration device compared with stent thrombectomy

Estimation of treatment effects in observational stroke care data: comparison of statistical approaches

Introduction: Various statistical approaches can be used to deal with unmeasured confounding when estimating treatment effects in observational studies, each with its own pros and cons. This study aimed to compare treatment effects as estimated by different statistical approaches for two interventions in observational stroke care data. Patients and methods: We used prospectively collected data from the MR CLEAN registry including all patients (n = 3279) with ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment (EVT) from 2014 to 2017 in 17 Dutch hospitals. Treatment effects of two interventions – i.e., receiving an intravenous thrombolytic (IVT) and undergoing general anesthesia (GA) before EVT – on good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) were estimated. We used three statistical regression-based approaches that vary in assumptions regarding the source of unmeasured confounding: individual-level (two subtypes), ecological, and instrumental variable analyses. In the latter, the preference for using the interventions in each hospital was used as an instrument. Results: Use of IVT (range 66–87%) and GA (range 0–93%) varied substantially between hospitals. For IVT, the individual-level (OR ~ 1.33) resulted in significant positive effect estimates whereas in instrumental variable analysis no significant treatment effect was found (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.58–1.56). The ecological analysis indicated no statistically significant different likelihood (β = − 0.002%; P = 0.99) of good functional outcome at hospitals using IVT 1% more frequently. For GA, we found non-significant opposite directions of points estimates the treatment effect in the individual-level (ORs ~ 0.60) versus the instrumental variable approach (OR = 1.04). The ecological analysis also resulted in a non-significant negative association (0.03% lower probability). Discussion and conclusion: Both magnitude and direction of the estimated treatment effects for both interventions depend strongly on the statistical approach and thus on the source of (unmeasured) confounding. These issues should be understood concerning the specific characteristics of data, before applying an approach and interpreting the results. Instrumental variable analysis might be considered when unobserved confounding and practice variation is expected in observational multicenter studies

Prognostic Value of Thrombus Volume and Interaction With First-Line Endovascular Treatment Device Choice

BACKGROUND: A larger thrombus in patients with acute ischemic stroke might result in more complex endovascular treatment procedures, resulting in poorer patient outcomes. Current evidence on thrombus volume and length related to procedural and functional outcomes remains contradicting. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of thrombus volume and thrombus length and whether this relationship differs between first-line stent retrievers and aspiration devices for endovascular treatment.METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, 670 of 3279 patients from the MR CLEAN Registry (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) for endovascularly treated large vessel occlusions were included. Thrombus volume (0.1 mL) and length (0.1 mm) based on manual segmentations and measurements were related to reperfusion grade (expanded Treatment in Cerebral Infarction score) after endovascular treatment, the number of retrieval attempts, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and a shift for functional outcome at 90 days measured with the reverted ordinal modified Rankin Scale (odds ratio &gt;1 implies a favorable outcome). Univariable and multivariable linear and logistic regression were used to report common odds ratios (cORs)/adjusted cOR and regression coefficients (B/aB) with 95% CIs. Furthermore, a multiplicative interaction term was used to analyze the relationship between first-line device choice, stent retrievers versus aspiration device, thrombus volume, and outcomes.RESULTS: Thrombus volume was associated with functional outcome (adjusted cOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71-0.97]) and number of retrieval attempts (aB, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.16-0.28]) but not with the other outcome measures. Thrombus length was only associated with functional independence (adjusted cOR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.24-0.85]). Patients with more voluminous thrombi had worse functional outcomes if endovascular treatment was based on first-line stent retrievers (interaction cOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50-0.89]; P=0.005; adjusted cOR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.55-1.0]; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with a more voluminous thrombus required more endovascular thrombus retrieval attempts and had a worse functional outcome. Patients with a lengthier thrombus were less likely to achieve functional independence at 90 days. For more voluminous thrombi, first-line stent retrieval compared with first-line aspiration might be associated with worse functional outcome.</p

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p&lt;0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons