Predictors of poor outcome after endovascular treatment for acute vertebrobasilar occlusion: data from ANGEL-ACT registry

Periprocedural unfractionated heparin bolus during endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke does more harm than good

BACKGROUND

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) bolus is occasionally administered during endovascular treatment (EVT) to reduce thrombotic complications in acute ischemic stroke patients. However, the MR CLEAN-MED trial showed an increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages (sICH) and a non-significant shift towards worse functional outcome with UFH administration. We aimed to analyze the impact of periprocedural UFH bolus in a real-world setting in anterior (ACS) and posterior circulation stroke (PCS) patients.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment using propensity score matching. Primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale at 3 months, and secondary outcome measures included mortality, angiographic outcomes, post-EVT National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores and ICH at 24 hours.

RESULTS

Among 13,082 patients, 7948 with ACS (UFH bolus use in 15%) and 841 with PCS (UFH bolus use in 16.3%) were included in the propensity score matching analysis. Applying MR CLEAN-MED study criteria, UFH bolus was associated with worse functional outcomes (odds ratio [OR] 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.96). Analyzing all ACS and PCS patients, UFH bolus did not provide any net benefit. In ACS patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), UFH bolus use was associated with worse functional outcomes (OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.34 to 5.06).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show transferability of the MR CLEAN-MED results into a real-world setting, confirming a negative effect of periprocedural UFH on functional outcome in this subgroup of patients. Considering all ACS and PCS patients, periprocedural UFH did not provide a net benefit and appears to be harmful, particularly in IVT-treated patients.

Incidence and predictors of futile recanalisation after endovascular therapy in acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion patients: insight from the ANGEL-ACT registry

OBJECTIVES

To identify the occurrence rate and predictors of futile recanalisation after endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (VBAO).

METHODS

Participants of the Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischaemic Stroke (ANGEL-ACT) registry were selected for the analysis. Futile recanalisation was defined as patients did not achieve a 90-day good outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤3) despite successful recanalisation (modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischaemia Scale ≥2b) after the procedure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent predictors of futile recanalisation in VBAO patients undergoing EVT.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifteen patients with VBAO who achieved successful recanalisation after EVT were included in current analysis, of whom, 155 (49.2%) suffered futile recanalisation, and 160 achieved effective recanalisation. After the multivariable analysis, we found admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥19 (OR 4.81, 95% CI 2.76 to 8.39, p<0.001), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) ≥162.2 (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.27, p=0.001), onset-to-puncture time (OTP) ≥334 min (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.68, p=0.005) and use of general anesthesia (GA) (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.22, p=0.024) were associated with futile recanalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Futile recanalisation after EVT occurred 49.2% of VBAO patients in the ANGEL-ACT registry. NIHSS≥19, PLR≥162.2, OTP≥334 min and use of GA were independent predictors of futile recanalisation.

Unsuccessful Recanalization versus Medical Management of Patients with Large Ischemic Core : Analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The outcomes of patients with large ischemic core who fail to recanalize with endovascular therapy (EVT) compared to medical management (MM) are uncertain. The objective was to evaluate the clinical and safety outcomes of patients who underwent EVT in patients with large ischemic core and unsuccessful recanalization.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT randomized trial. Unsuccessful recanalization was defined as patients who underwent EVT with eTICI 0-2a. The primary endpoint was 90-day very poor outcome (mRS 5-6). Multivariable logistic regression was conducted controlling for ASPECTS, occlusion location, intravenous thrombolysis, and time to treatment.

RESULTS

Of 455 patients 225 were treated with MM. Of 230 treated with EVT, 43 (19%) patients had unsuccessful recanalization. There was no difference in 90-day very poor outcomes (39.5% vs. 40%, aOR 0.93, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.47-1.85, p = 0.95), sICH (7.0% vs. 2.7%, aOR 2.81, 95% CI 0.6-13.29, p = 0.19), or mortality (30% vs. 20%, aOR 1.65, 95% CI 0.89-3.06, p = 0.11) between the unsuccessful EVT and MM groups, respectively. There were higher rates of ICH (55.8% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001), infarct core volume growth (142.7 ml vs. 90.5 ml, β = 47.77, 95% CI 20.97-74.57 ml, p < 0.001), and decompressive craniectomy (18.6% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) in the unsuccessful EVT versus MM groups.

CONCLUSION

In a randomized trial of patients with large ischemic core undergoing EVT with unsuccessful recanalization, there was no difference in very poor outcomes, sICH or death versus medically managed patients. In the unsuccessful EVT group, there were higher rates of any ICH, volume of infarct core growth, and decompressive craniectomy.

Bridging therapy improves functional outcomes and reduces 90-day mortality compared with direct endovascular thrombectomy in patients with acute posterior ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether bridging therapy can achieve better neurologic outcomes than direct endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with posterior ischemic stroke.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases with posterior artery occlusion treated with bridging therapy vs. EVT. Efficacy was assessed based on functional independence at 90 days and successful recanalization, whereas safety was assessed by mortality, rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and occurrence of any hemorrhage. All data were analyzed with Review Manager software v5.3 and the risk of bias was determined using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies.

RESULTS

We included 17 studies with a total of 3278 patients (1211 in the bridging therapy group and 2067 in the EVT group). Patients in the bridging group had a better functional outcome at 90 days, as evidenced by a higher proportion with a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 compared with the EVT group (odds ratio (OR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-2.19, P < 0.01), while no difference in mRS score of 0-3 (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.96-1.45, P = 0.11). Patients in the bridging therapy group also had lower 90-day mortality rate (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59-0.95, P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between groups in rates of successful recanalization (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.74-1.25, P = 0.77), sICH (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.86-1.89, P = 0.24), and hemorrhage (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.60-2.50, P = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with posterior ischemic stroke, bridging therapy may be superior to EVT in achieving a good functional outcome and lowering the mortality without increasing the risks of hemorrhage.