Acute Endovascular Treatment of Patients With lschemic Stroke From Intracranial Large Vessel Occlusion and Extracranial Carotid Dissection

Introduction: Carotid artery dissection (CAD) and atherosclerotic carotid artery occlusion (ACAO) are major causes of a tandem occlusion in patients with intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO). Presence of tandem occlusions may hamper intracranial access and potentially increases the risk of procedural complications of endovascular treatment (EVT). Our aim was to assess neurological, functional and technical outcome and complications of EVT for intracranial LVO in patients with CAD in comparison to patients with ACAO and to patients without CAD or ACAO. Methods: We analyzed data of the MR CLEAN trial intervention arm and MR CLEAN Registry, acquired in 16 Dutch EVT-centers. Primary outcome was the change in stroke severity by comparing the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 24–48 h after treatment vs. baseline. Secondary outcomes included reperfusion rate and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). We compared outcomes and complications between patients with CAD vs. patients with ACAO and patients without CAD or ACAO. Results: In total, we identified 74 (4.7%) patients with CAD, 92 (5.9%) patients with ACAO and 1398 (89.4%) patients without CAD or ACAO. Neurological improvement at short-term after EVT in patients with CAD was significantly better compared to ACAO (resp. mean −5 vs. mean −1 NIHSS point; p = 0.03) and did not differ compared to patients without CAD or ACAO (−4 NIHSS points; p = 0.62). Rates of successful reperfusion in patients with CAD (47%) was comparable to patients with ACAO (47%; p = 1.00), but was less often achieved compared to patients without CAD or ACAO (58%; p = 0.08). Occurrence of sICH did not differ significantly between CAD patients (5%) and ACAO (11%; p = 0.33) or without CAD/ACAO (6%; p = 1.00). Conclusion: EVT in patients with intracranial LVO due to CAD results in neurological improvement comparable to patients without tandem occlusions. Therefore, carotid artery dissection by itself should not be a contraindicati

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