Pressor therapy in acute ischaemic stroke: an updated systematic review

Background Low blood pressure (BP) in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is associated with poor functional outcome, death, or severe disability. Increasing BP might benefit patients with post-stroke hypotension including those with potentially salvageable ischaemic penumbra. This updated systematic review considers the present evidence regarding the use of vasopressors in AIS. Methods We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial databases using a structured search strategy. We examined reference lists of relevant publications for additional studies examining BP elevation in AIS. Results We included 27 studies involving 1886 patients. Nine studies assessed increasing BP during acute reperfusion therapy (intravenous thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis or combined). Eighteen studies tested BP elevation alone. Phenylephrine was the most commonly used agent to increase BP (n = 16 studies), followed by norepinephrine (n = 6), epinephrine (n = 3) and dopamine (n = 2). Because of small patient numbers and study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not possible. Overall, BP elevation was feasible in patients with fluctuating or worsening neurological symptoms, large vessel occlusion with labile BP, sustained post-stroke hypotension and ineligible for intravenous thrombolysis or after acute reperfusion therapy. The effects on functional outcomes were largely unknown and close monitoring is advised if such intervention is undertaken. Conclusion Although theoretical arguments support increasing BP to improve cerebral blood flow and sustain the ischaemic penumbra in selected AIS patients, the data are limited and results largely inconclusive. Large, randomised controlled trials are needed to identify the optimal BP target, agent, duration of treatment and effects on clinical outcomes.acceptedVersio

Healthy life-year costs of treatment speed from arrival to endovascular thrombectomy in patients with ischemic stroke

Importance The benefits of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) are time dependent. Prior studies may have underestimated the time-benefit association because time of onset is imprecisely known. Objective To assess the lifetime outcomes associated with speed of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion (LVO). Data Sources PubMed was searched for randomized clinical trials of stent retriever thrombectomy devices vs medical therapy in patients with anterior circulation LVO within 12 hours of last known well time, and for which a peer-reviewed, complete primary results article was published by August 1, 2020. Study Selection All randomized clinical trials of stent retriever thrombectomy devices vs medical therapy in patients with anterior circulation LVO within 12 hours of last known well time were included. Data Extraction/Synthesis Patient-level data regarding presenting clinical and imaging features and functional outcomes were pooled from the 7 retrieved randomized clinical trials of stent retriever thrombectomy devices (entirely or predominantly) vs medical therapy. All 7 identified trials published in a peer-reviewed journal (by August 1, 2020) contributed data. Detailed time metrics were collected including last known well–to-door (LKWTD) time; last known well/onset-to-puncture (LKWTP) time; last known well–to-reperfusion (LKWR) time; door-to-puncture (DTP) time; and door-to-reperfusion (DTR) time. Main Outcomes and Measures Change in healthy life-years measured as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) owing to premature mortality and years of healthy life lost because of disability (YLD). Disability weights were assigned using the utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale. Age-specific life expectancies without stroke were calculated from 2017 US National Vital Statistics. Results Among the 781 EVT-treated patients, 406 (52.0%) were early-treated (LKWTP ≤4 hours) and 375 (48.0%) were late-treated (LKWTP >4-12 hours). In early-treated patients, LKWTD was 188 minutes (interquartile range, 151.3-214.8 minutes) and DTP 105 minutes (interquartile range, 76-135 minutes). Among the 298 of 380 (78.4%) patients with substantial reperfusion, median DTR time was 145.0 minutes (interquartile range, 111.5-185.5 minutes). Care process delays were associated with worse clinical outcomes in LKW-to-intervention intervals in early-treated patients and in door-to-intervention intervals in early-treated and late-treated patients, and not associated with LKWTD intervals, eg, in early-treated patients, for each 10-minute delay, healthy life-years lost were DTP 1.8 months vs LKWTD 0.0 months; P < .001. Considering granular time increments, the amount of healthy life-time lost associated with each 1 second of delay was DTP 2.2 hours and DTR 2.4 hours. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, care delays were associated with loss of healthy life-years in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with EVT, particularly in the postarrival time period. The finding that every 1 second of delay was associated with loss of 2.2 hours of healthy life may encourage continuous quality improvement in door-to-treatment times

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<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