BACKGROUNDThe value of administering intravenous alteplase before endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke has not been studied extensively, particularly in non-Asian populations. METHODSWe performed an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial in Europe involving patients with stroke who presented directly to a hospital that was capable of providing EVT and who were eligible for intravenous alteplase and EVT. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVT alone or intravenous alteplase followed by EVT (the standard of care). The primary end point was functional outcome on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no disability] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. We assessed the superiority of EVT alone over alteplase plus EVT, as well as noninferiority by a margin of 0.8 for the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio of the two trial groups. Death from any cause and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were the main safety end points. RESULTSThe analysis included 539 patients. The median score on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 5) with EVT alone and 2 (interquartile range, 2 to 5) with alteplase plus EVT. The adjusted common odds ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.15; P = 0.28), which showed neither superiority nor noninferiority of EVT alone. Mortality was 20.5% with EVT alone and 15.8% with alteplase plus EVT (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.30). Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 5.9% and 5.3% of the patients in the respective groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.81). CONCLUSIONSIn a randomized trial involving European patients, EVT alone was neither superior nor noninferior to intravenous alteplase followed by EVT with regard to disability outcome at 90 days after stroke. The incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke consortium and others; MR CLEAN-NO IV ISRCTN number, ISRCTN80619088.

Background and Purpose: Whereas a clear benefit of endovascular treatment for anterior circulation stroke has been established, randomized trials assessing the posterior circulation have failed to show efficacy. Previous studies in anterior circulation stroke suggest that advanced thrombectomy devices were of great importance in achieving clinical benefit. Little is known about the effect of thrombectomy techniques on outcomes in posterior circulation stroke. In this study, we compare first-line strategy of direct aspiration to stent retriever thrombectomy for posterior circulation stroke. Methods: We analyzed data of patients with a posterior circulation stroke who were included in the Multicentre Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands Registry between March 2014 and December 2018, a prospective, nationwide study, in which data were collected from consecutive patients who underwent endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke in the Netherlands. We compared patients who underwent first-line aspiration versus stent retriever thrombectomy. Primary outcome was functional outcome according to the modified Rankin Scale. Secondary outcomes were reperfusion grade, complication rate, and procedure duration. Associations between thrombectomy technique and outcome measures were estimated with multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses. Results: Overall, 71 of 205 patients (35%) were treated with aspiration, and 134 (65%) with stent retriever thrombectomy. Patients in the aspiration group had a lower pc-ASPECTS on baseline computed tomography, and general anesthesia was more often applied in this group. First-line aspiration was associated with better functional outcome compared with stent retriever thrombectomy (adjusted common odds ratio for a 1-point improvement on the modified Rankin Scale 1.94 [95% CI, 1.03–3.65]). Successful reperfusion (extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction ≥2B) was achieved more often with aspiration (87% versus 73%, P =0.03). Symptomatic hemorrhage rates were comparable (3% versus 4%). Procedure times were shorter in the aspiration group (49 versus 69 minutes P <0.001). Conclusions: In this retrospective nonrandomized cohort study, our findings suggest that first-line aspiration is associated with a shorter procedure time, better reperfusion, and better clinical outcome than stent retriever thrombectomy in patients with ischemic stroke based on large vessel occlusion in the posterior circulation.

BackgroundFirst pass reperfusion (FPR), that is, excellent reperfusion (expanded treatment in cerebral ischemia (eTICI) 2C-3) in one pass, after endovascular treatment (EVT) of an occluded artery in the anterior circulation, is associated with favorable clinical outcome, even when compared with multiple pass excellent reperfusion (MPR). In patients with posterior circulation ischemic stroke (PCS), the same association is expected, but currently unknown. We aimed to assess characteristics associated with FPR and the influence of FPR versus MPR on outcomes in patients with PCS.MethodsWe used data from the MR CLEAN Registry, a prospective observational study. The effect of FPR on 24-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, as percentage reduction, and on modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at 3 months, was tested with linear and ordinal logistic regression models.ResultsOf 224 patients with PCS, 45 patients had FPR, 47 had MPR, and 90 had no excellent reperfusion (eTICI <2C). We did not find an association between any of the patient, imaging, or treatment characteristics and FPR. FPR was associated with better NIHSS (−45% (95% CI: −65% to −12%)) and better mRS scores (adjusted common odds ratio (acOR): 2.16 (95% CI: 1.23 to 3.79)) compared with no FPR. Outcomes after FPR were also more favorable compared with MPR, but the effect was smaller and not statistically significant (NIHSS: −14% (95% CI: −51% to 49%), mRS acOR: 1.50 (95% CI: 0.75 to 3.00)).ConclusionsFPR in patients with PCS is associated with favorable clinical outcome in comparison with no FPR. In comparison with MPR, the effect of FPR was no longer statistically significant. Nevertheless, our data support the notion that FPR should be the treatment target to pursue in every patient treated with EVT.