Antiplatelet therapy in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: an updated meta-analysis

10.1007/s10143-023-02120-2NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW46

Abstract Number: LBA1 Endovascular Thrombectomy vs Best Medical Therapy for Late Presentation Ischaemic Stroke Selected using Non‐Contrast CT

Introduction The efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) beyond 6 hours from acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) onset for patients with proximal large vessel occlusion (LVO) selected without CT perfusion or MR imaging is undetermined in routine clinical practice. Methods In this single centre study, we identified consecutive AIS patients with an ICA or M1 MCA segment occlusion who were eligible for EVT based on non‐contrast CT/CT angiography (without CT perfusion or MR imaging) using an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of ≥ 6, and an NIHSS score of≥ 6, presenting beyond 6 hours from stroke onset, between January 2018 and March 2022. During the study period, EVT capacity limitations meant EVT‐eligible patients presenting out of regular working hours (between 18.00 and 08.00 on weekdays) or on weekends, consistently received best medical management (BMM). This systemic unavailability of EVT, allows a comparison of EVT and BMM in patients who meet the same inclusion criteria, in which selection based on physician‐related bias is significantly reduced. Functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) and mortality at 90 days were compared between patients receiving EVT or BMM following multivariable adjustment for age, sex, baseline stroke severity, ASPECTS, onset‐to‐neuroimaging time, IV thrombolysis, and clot location.Pre‐specified subgroup analyses were performed. Results Among 4802 AIS patients, 150 patients (3.1%) presenting beyond 6‐hours of onset were eligible for EVT: 74 (49%) treated with EVT and 76 (51%) with BMM. Compared to the BMM group, patients treated with EVT had significantly improved functional outcome (mRS) (adjusted common OR = 2.23, 95%CI 1.18‐4.22, p = 0.013), and higher rates of functional independence (mRS≤2; 39.2.% vs 9.2%; aOR = 4.73, 95%CI 1.64‐13.63, p = 0.004). No significant difference was observed between the EVT and BMM groups in the sICH (5.4% vs 2.6%, p = 0.94) or mortality (20.2% vs 47.3%, p = 0.16) rates, respectively. EVT remained effective within the 6–12 hour and >12 hour time window subgroups. No significant treatment interaction was observed in all subgroups. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, of the 3.1% of patients in our AIS population presenting after 6 hours from stroke onset who were deemed eligible for EVT by NCCT/CTA alone, those treated with EVT achieved significantly improved functional outcome, compared to patients treated with BMM only. No significant differences were noted between the two groups with respect to sICH and mortality. While confirmatory randomised trials are awaited, these findings suggest that EVT is effective and safe when performed in AIS patients selected without CTP or MRI beyond 6 hours from stroke onset

Robotic Interventional Neuroradiology: Progress, Challenges, and Future Prospects.

Advances in robotic technology have improved standard techniques in numerous surgical and endovascular specialties, offering more precision, control, and better patient outcomes. Robotic-assisted interventional neuroradiology is an emerging field at the intersection of interventional neuroradiology and biomedical robotics. Endovascular robotics can automate maneuvers to reduce procedure times and increase its safety, reduce occupational hazards associated with ionizing radiations, and expand networks of care to reduce gaps in geographic access to neurointerventions. To date, many robotic neurointerventional procedures have been successfully performed, including cerebral angiography, intracranial aneurysm embolization, carotid stenting, and epistaxis embolization. This review aims to provide a survey of the state of the art in robotic-assisted interventional neuroradiology, consider their technical and adoption limitations, and explore future developments critical for the widespread adoption of robotic-assisted neurointerventions

Late Window Imaging Selection for Endovascular Therapy of Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: An International Survey

Background Current stroke guidelines recommend advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT] perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging) prior to endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with late presentation of large vessel occlusion. Adherence to guidelines may be constrained by resources or timely access to imaging. We sought to understand the factors which influence late window imaging selection for EVT candidates with large vessel occlusion. Methods We conducted an international survey from January to May 2022. The questions aimed to identify advanced imaging and treatment decisions based on access to imaging, time delays, and simulated patient scenarios. Results There were 3000 invited participants and 1506 respondents, the majority (89.6%) from comprehensive stroke centers in high‐income countries. Neurointerventionalists comprised 31.8% and noninterventionalists 68.2% of respondents. Overall, 70.7% reported routine use of advanced imaging for late EVT selection, and 63.6% reported its usage in every case. There was greater availability of advanced imaging in comprehensive stroke centers versus primary stroke centers (67.0% versus 33.7%; P<0.0001), and high‐ versus low‐middle income countries (70.5% versus 44.5%; P<0.0001). When presented with a late window patient, 41.6% would complete CT perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging prior to EVT, 25.4% would perform CT perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging prior to IVT and EVT, and 25.8% would refer to EVT without advanced imaging. If advanced imaging was not readily available, 70.1% would refer a patient to EVT based on CT in the late window. Additional time delay within 20 minutes to obtain advanced imaging was considered acceptable in 77.7% of respondents. Conclusion Current guidelines for imaging late window EVT candidates are inconsistent with imaging decisions by physicians. Most respondents consider an imaging delay of greater than 20 minutes unacceptable. Access to advanced imaging was greater in comprehensive stroke centers and high‐income countries. In the case of limited access most respondents would consider EVT based on CT only

Late Window Imaging Selection for Endovascular Therapy of Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke : An International Survey

Background Current stroke guidelines recommend advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT] perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging) prior to endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with late presentation of large vessel occlusion. Adherence to guidelines may be constrained by resources or timely access to imaging. We sought to understand the factors which influence late window imaging selection for EVT candidates with large vessel occlusion. Methods We conducted an international survey from January to May 2022. The questions aimed to identify advanced imaging and treatment decisions based on access to imaging, time delays, and simulated patient scenarios. Results There were 3000 invited participants and 1506 respondents, the majority (89.6%) from comprehensive stroke centers in high-income countries. Neurointerventionalists comprised 31.8% and noninterventionalists 68.2% of respondents. Overall, 70.7% reported routine use of advanced imaging for late EVT selection, and 63.6% reported its usage in every case. There was greater availability of advanced imaging in comprehensive stroke centers versus primary stroke centers (67.0% versus 33.7%; P<0.0001), and high- versus low-middle income countries (70.5% versus 44.5%; P<0.0001). When presented with a late window patient, 41.6% would complete CT perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging prior to EVT, 25.4% would perform CT perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging prior to IVT and EVT, and 25.8% would refer to EVT without advanced imaging. If advanced imaging was not readily available, 70.1% would refer a patient to EVT based on CT in the late window. Additional time delay within 20 minutes to obtain advanced imaging was considered acceptable in 77.7% of respondents. Conclusion Current guidelines for imaging late window EVT candidates are inconsistent with imaging decisions by physicians. Most respondents consider an imaging delay of greater than 20 minutes unacceptable. Access to advanced imaging was greater in comprehensive stroke centers and high-income countries. In the case of limited access most respondents would consider EVT based on CT only.Peer reviewe

Specialist Perspectives on the Imaging Selection of Large Vessel Occlusion in the Late Window

Background: The proper imaging modality for use in the selection of patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) presenting in the late window remains controversial, despite current guidelines advocating the use of advanced imaging in this population. We sought to understand if clinicians with different specialty training differ in their approach to patient selection for EVT in the late time window. Methods: We conducted an international survey of stroke and neurointerventional clinicians between January and May 2022 with questions focusing on imaging and treatment decisions of large vessel occlusion (LVO) patients presenting in the late window. Interventional neurologists, interventional neuroradiologists, and endovascular neurosurgeons were defined as interventionists whereas all other specialties were defined as non-interventionists. The non-interventionist group was defined by all other specialties of the respondents: stroke neurologist, neuroradiologist, emergency medicine physician, trainee (fellows and residents) and others. Results: Of 3000 invited to participate, 1506 (1027 non-interventionists, 478 interventionists, 1 declined to specify) physicians completed the study. Interventionist respondents were more likely to proceed directly to EVT (39.5% vs. 19.5%; p &lt; 0.0001) compared to non-interventionist respondents in patients with favorable ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score). Despite no difference in access to advanced imaging, interventionists were more likely to prefer CT/CTA alone (34.8% vs. 21.0%) and less likely to prefer CT/CTA/CTP (39.1% vs. 52.4%) for patient selection (p &lt; 0.0001). When faced with uncertainty, non-interventionists were more likely to follow clinical guidelines (45.1% vs. 30.2%) while interventionists were more likely to follow their assessment of evidence (38.7% vs. 27.0%) (p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion: Interventionists were less likely to use advanced imaging techniques in selecting LVO patients presenting in the late window and more likely to base their decisions on their assessment of evidence rather than published guidelines. These results reflect gaps between interventionists and non-interventionists reliance on clinical guidelines, the limits of available evidence, and clinician belief in the utility of advanced imaging.</p