Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
ObjectivesWe investigated whether patients with large infarct and the presence or absence of perfusion mismatch are associated with endovascular treatment benefit.MethodsThis is a post‐hoc analysis of the Endovascular Therapy in Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusion with a Large Infarct (ANGEL‐ASPECT) randomized trial, which enrolled patients within 24 hours of onset with ASPECTS 3 to 5 or ASPECTS 0 to 2 with an infarct core 70 to 100 ml. Mismatch ratio was defined as time‐to‐maximum (Tmax) >6 s cerebral volume/ischemic core volume, and mismatch volume was defined as Tmax >6 s volume minus ischemic core volume. We divided patients into mismatch ratio ≥1.2 and mismatch volume ≥10 ml, and mismatch ratio ≥1.8 and mismatch volume ≥15 ml groups. The primary outcome was the 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score ordinal distribution. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and 90‐day mortality.ResultsThere were 425 patients included. In both the mismatch ratio ≥1.2 and mismatch volume ≥10 ml (mismatch+, n = 395; mismatch−, n = 31) and mismatch ratio ≥1.8 and mismatch volume ≥15 ml groups (mismatch+, n = 346; mismatch−, n = 80), better 90‐day modified Rankin Scale outcomes were found in the endovascular treatment group compared with the MM group (4 [2–5] vs 4 [3–5], common odds ratio [cOR], 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–2.7, p = 0.001; 4 [2–5] vs 4 [3–5], cOR, 1.9, 95% CI 1.3–2.8, p = 0.001, respectively), but not in patients without mismatch ratio ≥1.2 and mismatch volume ≥10 ml (5 [3–6] vs 5 [4–6], cOR, 1.2, 95% CI 0.3–4.1, p = 0.83), and mismatch ratio ≥1.8 and mismatch volume ≥15 ml (4 [3–6] vs 5 [3–6], cOR, 1.2, 95% CI 0.6–2.7, p = 0.60). However, no interaction effect was found in both subgroups (p interaction >0.10).ConclusionEndovascular treatment was more efficacious than MM in patients with mismatch profiles, but no treatment effect or interaction was noted in the no mismatch profile patients. However, the small sample size of patients with no mismatch may have underpowered our analysis. A pooled analysis of large core trials stratified by mismatch is warranted. ANN NEUROL 2024
ObjectivesWe investigated whether patients with large infarct and the presence or absence of perfusion mismatch are associated with endovascular treatment benefit.MethodsThis is a post‐hoc analysis of the Endovascular Therapy in Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusion with a Large Infarct (ANGEL‐ASPECT) randomized trial, which enrolled patients within 24 hours of onset with ASPECTS 3 to 5 or ASPECTS 0 to 2 with an infarct core 70 to 100 ml. Mismatch ratio was defined as time‐to‐maximum (Tmax) >6 s cerebral volume/ischemic core volume, and mismatch volume was defined as Tmax >6 s volume minus ischemic core volume. We divided patients into mismatch ratio ≥1.2 and mismatch volume ≥10 ml, and mismatch ratio ≥1.8 and mismatch volume ≥15 ml groups. The primary outcome was the 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score ordinal distribution. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and 90‐day mortality.ResultsThere were 425 patients included. In both the mismatch ratio ≥1.2 and mismatch volume ≥10 ml (mismatch+, n = 395; mismatch−, n = 31) and mismatch ratio ≥1.8 and mismatch volume ≥15 ml groups (mismatch+, n = 346; mismatch−, n = 80), better 90‐day modified Rankin Scale outcomes were found in the endovascular treatment group compared with the MM group (4 [2–5] vs 4 [3–5], common odds ratio [cOR], 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–2.7, p = 0.001; 4 [2–5] vs 4 [3–5], cOR, 1.9, 95% CI 1.3–2.8, p = 0.001, respectively), but not in patients without mismatch ratio ≥1.2 and mismatch volume ≥10 ml (5 [3–6] vs 5 [4–6], cOR, 1.2, 95% CI 0.3–4.1, p = 0.83), and mismatch ratio ≥1.8 and mismatch volume ≥15 ml (4 [3–6] vs 5 [3–6], cOR, 1.2, 95% CI 0.6–2.7, p = 0.60). However, no interaction effect was found in both subgroups (p interaction >0.10).ConclusionEndovascular treatment was more efficacious than MM in patients with mismatch profiles, but no treatment effect or interaction was noted in the no mismatch profile patients. However, the small sample size of patients with no mismatch may have underpowered our analysis. A pooled analysis of large core trials stratified by mismatch is warranted. ANN NEUROL 2024
BackgroundThe effect of multiple attempts on the outcome of endovascular treatment (EVT) of anterior circulation large ischemic core (LIC) stroke has not been fully explored.MethodsWe analyzed data from the Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke (ETIS) registry, a prospective, observational, multicenter study of acute ischemic stroke patients treated with EVT at 21 centers in France between January 1, 2015 and June 31, 2023. We included patients with proximal intracranial occlusion and LIC defined as Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 0–5 up to 24 hours after last being seen well. We divided patients according to the number of passes with successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) ≥2b) into seven groups, according to the corresponding number of passes. We compared them to the group of patients with unsuccessful reperfusion.ResultsA total of 1235 patients with LIC constituted the study cohort. The rate of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 3 at 90 days was significantly higher for the one-pass successful recanalization category compared to no recanalization (48.1% vs 17.2%; adjusted OR (aOR) 7.99, 95% CI 4.30 to 14.8, P<0.001) and remained so even after six or more attempts (27.7% vs 17.2%; aOR 3.59, 95% CI 1.37 to 9.39, P=0.009). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was lower for successful recanalization up to two passes (11.1% vs 18.8%; aOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.69, P=0.002) without any significant differences for a higher number of passes.ConclusionIn anterior circulation LIC patients, successful reperfusion, even after six passes, is associated with favorable clinical outcomes with no increased hemorrhagic risk when compared to unsuccessful reperfusion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.