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.

Background First‐pass reperfusion (FPR) is associated with favorable outcome after endovascular treatment. It is unknown whether this effect is independent of patient characteristics and whether FPR has better outcomes compared with excellent reperfusion (Expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [eTICI] 2C‐3) after multiple‐passes reperfusion. We aimed to evaluate the association between FPR and outcome with adjustment for patient, imaging, and treatment characteristics to single out the contribution of FPR. Methods and Results FPR was defined as eTICI 2C‐3 after 1 pass. Multivariable regression models were used to investigate characteristics associated with FPR and to investigate the effect of FPR on outcomes. We included 2686 patients of the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) Registry. Factors associated with FPR were as follows: history of hyperlipidemia (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.10), middle cerebral artery versus intracranial carotid artery occlusion (adjusted OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06–1.16), and aspiration versus stent thrombectomy (adjusted OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03–1.11). Interventionist experience increased the likelihood of FPR (adjusted OR, 1.03 per 50 patients previously treated; 95% CI, 1.01–1.06). Adjusted for patient, imaging, and treatment characteristics, FPR remained associated with a better 24‐hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (−37%; 95% CI, −43% to −31%) and a better modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months (adjusted common OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.83–2.54) compared with no FPR (multiple‐passes reperfusion+no excellent reperfusion), and compared with multiple‐passes reperfusion alone (24‐hour NIHSS score, (−23%; 95% CI, −31% to −14%), and mRS score (adjusted common OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.19–1.78)). Conclusions FPR compared with multiple‐passes reperfusion is associated with favorable outcome, independently of patient, imaging, and treatment characteristics. Factors associated with FPR were the experience of the interventionist, history of hyperlipidemia, location of occluded artery, and use of an aspiration device compared with stent thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The benefit of endovascular treatment (EVT) for posterior circulation stroke (PCS) remains uncertain, and little is known on treatment outcomes in clinical practice. This study evaluates outcomes of a large PCS cohort treated with EVT in clinical practice. Simultaneous to this observational study, several intervention centers participated in the BASICS trial (Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study), which tested the efficacy of EVT for basilar artery occlusion in a randomized setting. We additionally compared characteristics and outcomes of patients treated outside BASICS in trial centers to those from nontrial centers. Methods: We included patients with PCS from the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands Registry: a prospective, multicenter, observational study of patients who underwent EVT in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018. Primary outcome was a score of 0 to 3 on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included reperfusion status and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. For outcome comparison between patients treated in trial versus nontrial centers, we used ordinal logistic regression analysis. Results: We included 264 patients of whom 135 (51%) had received intravenous thrombolysis. The basilar artery was most often involved (77%). Favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–3) was observed in 115/252 (46%) patients, and 109/252 (43%) patients died. Successful reperfusion was achieved in 178/238 (75%), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 9/264 (3%). The 154 nontrial patients receiving EVT in BASICS trial centers had similar characteristics and outcomes as the 110 patients treated in nontrial centers (modified Rankin Scale adjusted cOR: 0.77 [95% CI, 0.5–1.2]). Conclusions: Our study shows that high rates of favorable clinical outcome and successful reperfusion can be achieved with EVT for PCS, despite high mortality. Characteristics and outcomes of patients treated in trial versus nontrial centers were similar indicating that our cohort is representative of clinical practice in the Netherlands. Randomized studies using modern treatment approaches are needed for further insight in the benefit of EVT for PCS.

Background: Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) is a serious complication after endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke. We aimed to identify determinants of its occurrence and location. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from the Dutch MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) and MR CLEAN registry. We included adult patients with a large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who underwent endovascular treatment within 6.5 hours of stroke onset. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify determinants of overall sICH occurrence, sICH within infarcted brain tissue, and sICH outside infarcted brain tissue. Results: SICH occurred in 203 (6%) of 3313 included patients and was located within infarcted brain tissue in 50 (25%), outside infarcted brain tissue in 23 (11%), and both within and outside infarcted brain tissue in 116 (57%) patients. In 14 patients (7%), data on location were missing. Prior antiplatelet use, baseline systolic blood pressure, baseline plasma glucose levels, post-endovascular treatment modified treatment in cerebral ischemia score, and duration of procedure were associated with all outcome parameters. In addition, determinants of sICH within infarcted brain tissue included history of myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.06–2.56]) and poor collateral score (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.02–1.95]), whereas determinants of sICH outside infarcted brain tissue included level of occlusion on computed tomography angiography (internal carotid artery or internal carotid artery terminus compared with M1: adjusted odds ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.16–2.78]). Conclusions: Several factors, some potentially modifiable, are associated with sICH occurrence. Further studies should investigate whether modification of baseline systolic blood pressure or plasma glucose level could reduce the risk of sICH. In addition, determinants differ per location of sICH, supporting the hypothesis of varying underlying mechanisms. Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com/ ; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Background: We evaluated data from all patients in the Netherlands who underwent endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in the past 3.5 years, to identify nationwide trends in time to treatment and procedural success, and assess their effect on clinical outcomes. Methods: We included patients with proximal occlusions of the anterior circulation from the second and first cohorts of the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) Registry (March 2014 to June 2016; June 2016 to November 2017, respectively). We compared workflow times and rates of successful reperfusion (defined as an extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score of 2B-3) between cohorts and chronological quartiles (all included patients stratified in chronological quartiles of intervention dates to create equally sized groups over the study period). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to assess differences in the primary outcome (ordinal modified Rankin Scale at 90 days). Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts (second cohort n=1692, first cohort n=1488) except for higher age, poorer collaterals, and less signs of early ischemia on computed tomography in the second cohort. Time from stroke onset to groin puncture and reperfusion were shorter in the second cohort (median 185 versus 210 minutes; P <0.001 and 236 versus 270 minutes; P <0.001, respectively). Successful reperfusion was achieved more often in the second than in the first cohort (72% versus 66%; P <0.001). Functional outcome significantly improved (adjusted common odds ratio 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07–1.40]). This effect was attenuated by adjustment for time from onset to reperfusion (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98–1.28]) and successful reperfusion (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.99–1.30]). Outcomes were consistent in the analysis per chronological quartile. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in routine clinical practice have improved over the past years, likely resulting from improved workflow times and higher successful reperfusion rates.