Safety and effectiveness of IV Thrombolysis in retinal artery occlusion: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited. METHODS From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA. RESULTS We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group. CONCLUSION Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO

Safety and effectiveness of IV Thrombolysis in retinal artery occlusion: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Background: Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited. Methods: From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA. Results: We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group. Conclusion: Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO

Time to treatment with bridging intravenous alteplase before endovascular treatment:subanalysis of the randomized controlled SWIFT-DIRECT trial.

BACKGROUND We hypothesized that treatment delays might be an effect modifier regarding risks and benefits of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before mechanical thrombectomy (MT). METHODS We used the dataset of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial, which randomized 408 patients to IVT+MT or MT alone. Potential interactions between assignment to IVT+MT and expected time from onset-to-needle (OTN) as well as expected time from door-to-needle (DTN) were included in regression models. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included mRS shift, mortality, recanalization rates, and (symptomatic) intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours. RESULTS We included 408 patients (IVT+MT 207, MT 201, median age 72 years (IQR 64-81), 209 (51.2%) female). The expected median OTN and DTN were 142 min and 54 min in the IVT+MT group and 129 min and 51 min in the MT alone group. Overall, there was no significant interaction between OTN and bridging IVT assignment regarding either the functional (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.30) and safety outcomes or the recanalization rates. Analysis of in-hospital delays showed no significant interaction between DTN and bridging IVT assignment regarding the dichotomized functional outcome (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.62), but the shift and mortality analyses suggested a greater benefit of IVT when in-hospital delays were short. CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence that the effect of bridging IVT on functional independence is modified by overall or in-hospital treatment delays. Considering its low power, this subgroup analysis could have missed a clinically important effect, and exploratory analysis of secondary clinical outcomes indicated a potentially favorable effect of IVT with shorter in-hospital delays. Heterogeneity of the IVT effect size before MT should be further analyzed in individual patient meta-analysis of comparable trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03192332

Thrombectomy alone versus intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in patients with stroke: an open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND Whether thrombectomy alone is equally as effective as intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy remains controversial. We aimed to determine whether thrombectomy alone would be non-inferior to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, blinded-outcome trial in Europe and Canada, we recruited patients with stroke due to large vessel occlusion confirmed with CT or magnetic resonance angiography admitted to endovascular centres. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised web server using a deterministic minimisation method to receive stent-retriever thrombectomy alone or intravenous alteplase plus stent-retriever thrombectomy. In both groups, thrombectomy was initiated as fast as possible with any commercially available Solitaire stent-retriever revascularisation device (Medtronic, Irvine, CA, USA). In the combined treatment group, intravenous alteplase (0·9 mg/kg bodyweight, maximum dose 90 mg per patient) was administered as early as possible after randomisation for 60 min with 10% of the calculated dose given as an initial bolus. Personnel assessing the primary outcome were masked to group allocation; patients and treating physicians were not. The primary binary outcome was a score of 2 or less on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days. We assessed the non-inferiority of thrombectomy alone versus intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in all randomly assigned and consenting patients using the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit of the Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 12%. The main safety endpoint was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage assessed in all randomly assigned and consenting participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03192332, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS Between Nov 29, 2017, and May 7, 2021, 5215 patients were screened and 423 were randomly assigned, of whom 408 (201 thrombectomy alone, 207 intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy) were included in the primary efficacy analysis. A modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days was reached by 114 (57%) of 201 patients assigned to thrombectomy alone and 135 (65%) of 207 patients assigned to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy (adjusted risk difference -7·3%, 95% CI -16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI -15·1%, crossing the non-inferiority margin of -12%). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in five (2%) of 201 patients undergoing thrombectomy alone and seven (3%) of 202 patients receiving intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy (risk difference -1·0%, 95% CI -4·8 to 2·7). Successful reperfusion was less common in patients assigned to thrombectomy alone (182 [91%] of 201 vs 199 [96%] of 207, risk difference -5·1%, 95% CI -10·2 to 0·0, p=0·047). INTERPRETATION Thrombectomy alone was not shown to be non-inferior to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy and resulted in decreased reperfusion rates. These results do not support omitting intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy in eligible patients. FUNDING Medtronic and University Hospital Bern

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Amid the COVID-19 Outbreak

International audienceBackground and Purpose: The efficiency of prehospital care chain response and the adequacy of hospital resources are challenged amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, with suspected consequences for patients with ischemic stroke eligible for mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods: We conducted a prospective national-level data collection of patients treated with MT, ranging 45 days across epidemic containment measures instatement, and of patients treated during the same calendar period in 2019. The primary end point was the variation of patients receiving MT during the epidemic period. Secondary end points included care delays between onset, imaging, and groin puncture. To analyze the primary end point, we used a Poisson regression model. We then analyzed the correlation between the number of MTs and the number of COVID-19 cases hospitalizations, using the Pearson correlation coefficient (compared with the null value). Results: A total of 1513 patients were included at 32 centers, in all French administrative regions. There was a 21% significant decrease (0.79; [95%CI, 0.76–0.82]; P <0.001) in MT case volumes during the epidemic period, and a significant increase in delays between imaging and groin puncture, overall (mean 144.9±SD 86.8 minutes versus 126.2±70.9; P <0.001 in 2019) and in transferred patients (mean 182.6±SD 82.0 minutes versus 153.25±67; P <0.001). After the instatement of strict epidemic mitigation measures, there was a significant negative correlation between the number of hospitalizations for COVID and the number of MT cases ( R 2 −0.51; P =0.04). Patients treated during the COVID outbreak were less likely to receive intravenous thrombolysis and to have unwitnessed strokes (both P <0.05). Conclusions: Our study showed a significant decrease in patients treated with MTs during the first stages of the COVID epidemic in France and alarming indicators of lengthened care delays. These findings prompt immediate consideration of local and regional stroke networks preparedness in the varying contexts of COVID-19 pandemic evolution