First-line thrombectomy strategy for anterior large vessel occlusions: Results of the prospective ETIS egistry

Background: The best recanalization strategy for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) remains unknown as no randomized controlled trial has simultaneously evaluated first-line stent retriever (SR) versus contact aspiration (CA) versus the combined approach (SR+CA). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety profiles of SR, CA, and SR+CA in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treated by MT. Methods: We analyzed data of the Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke (ETIS) Registry, a prospective, multicenter, observational study of patients with AIS treated by MT. Patients with M1 and intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusions between January 2015 and March 2020 in 15 comprehensive stroke centers were included. We assessed the association of first-line strategy with favorable outcomes at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2), successful recanalization rates (modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2b/3), and safety outcomes. Results: We included 2643 patients, 406 treated with SR, 1126 with CA, and 1111 with SR+CA. CA or SR+CA achieved more successful recanalization than SR for M1 occlusions (aOR=2.09, (95% CI 1.39 to 3.13) and aOR=1.69 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.53), respectively). For intracranial ICA, SR+CA achieved more recanalization than SR (aOR=2.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 4.81)), no differences were observed between CA and SR+CA. SR+CA was associated with lower odds of favorable outcomes compared with SR (aOR=0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90)) and CA (aOR=0.71 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.92)), higher odds of mortality at 3 months (aOR=1.56 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.0)) compared with CA, and higher odds of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aOR=1.59 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.3)) compared with CA. Conclusions: Despite high recanalization rates, our results question the safety of the combined approach, which was associated with disability and mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these techniques. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ

Safety and Outcome of Revascularization Treatment in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke and COVID-19: The Global COVID-19 Stroke Registry.

COVID-19 related inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk and lower efficacy of revascularization treatments in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of revascularization treatments in patients with acute ischemic stroke and COVID-19. Retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular treatment (EVT) between March 2020 and June 2021, tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. With a doubly-robust model combining propensity score weighting and multivariate regression, we studied the association of COVID-19 with intracranial bleeding complications and clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to treatment groups (IVT-only and EVT). Of a total of 15128 included patients from 105 centers, 853 (5.6%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. 5848 (38.7%) patients received IVT-only, and 9280 (61.3%) EVT (with or without IVT). Patients with COVID-19 had a higher rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.53; 95% CI 1.16-2.01), symptomatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SSAH) (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.20-2.69), SICH and/or SSAH combined (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.23-1.99), 24-hour (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.58-3.86) and 3-month mortality (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.52-2.33).COVID-19 patients also had an unfavorable shift in the distribution of the modified Rankin score at 3 months (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.26-1.60). Patients with acute ischemic stroke and COVID-19 showed higher rates of intracranial bleeding complications and worse clinical outcomes after revascularization treatments than contemporaneous non-COVID-19 treated patients. Current available data does not allow direct conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of revascularization treatments in COVID-19 patients, or to establish different treatment recommendations in this subgroup of patients with ischemic stroke. Our findings can be taken into consideration for treatment decisions, patient monitoring and establishing prognosis