Long-term follow-up study of endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis trial

International audienceBackground and Purpose-We aimed at comparing the long-term benefit-risk balance of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.Methods-Long-term follow-up study of patients included in Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S), a randomized, controlled trial of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in 527 patients with recently symptomatic severe carotid stenosis, conducted in 30 centers in France. The main end point was a composite of any ipsilateral stroke after randomization or any procedural stroke or death.Results-During a median follow-up of 7.1 years (interquartile range, 5.1-8.8 years; maximum 12.4 years), the primary end point occurred in 30 patients in the stenting group compared with 18 patients in the endarterectomy group. Cumulative probabilities of this outcome were 11.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.9-15.2) versus 6.3% (4.0-9.8) in the endarterectomy group at the 5-year follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.85; 1.00-3.40; P=0.04) and 11.5% (8.2-15.9) versus 7.6% (4.9-11.8; hazard ratio, 1.70; 0.95-3.06; P=0.07) at the 10-year follow-up. No difference was observed between treatment groups in the rates of ipsilateral stroke beyond the procedural period, severe carotid restenosis (>= 70%) or occlusion, death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization procedures.Conclusions-The long-term benefit-risk balance of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis favored endarterectomy, a difference driven by a lower risk of procedural stroke after endarterectomy. Both techniques were associated with low and similar long-term risks of recurrent ipsilateral stroke beyond the procedural period

Supplementary Material for: Target Door-to-Needle Time for Tissue Plasminogen Activator Treatment with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Can Be Reduced to 45 min

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that the median door-to-needle (DTN) time for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) treatment can be reduced to 45 min in a primary stroke centre with MRI-based screening for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> From February 2015 to February 2017, the stroke unit of Perpignan general hospital, France, implemented a quality-improvement (QI) process. During this period, patients who received tPA within 4.5 h after AIS onset were included in the QI cohort. Their clinical characteristics and timing metrics were compared each semester and also with those of 135 consecutive patients with AIS treated by tPA during the 1-year pre-QI period (pre-QI cohort). <b><i>Results:</i></b> In the QI cohort, 274 patients (92.5%) underwent MRI screening. While the demographic and baseline characteristics were not significantly different between cohorts, the median DTN time was significantly lower in the QI than in the pre-QI cohort (52 vs. 84 min; <i>p</i> < 0.00001). Within the QI cohort, the median DTN time for each semester decreased from 65 to 44 min (<i>p</i> < 0.00001) and the proportion of treated patients with a DTN time ≤45 min increased from 25 to 58.9% (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). Overall, DTN time improvement was associated with a better outcome at 3 months (patients with a modified Rankin Scale score between 0 and 2: 61.8% in the QI vs. 39.3% in the pre-QI cohort; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> A QI process can reduce the DTN within 45 min with MRI as a screening tool

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