| 1. |
- Blauenfeldt, Rolf Ankerlund, et al.
(author)
-
Remote Ischemic Conditioning for Acute Stroke : The RESIST Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2023
-
In: JAMA. - 0098-7484. ; 330:13, s. 1236-1246
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Importance: Despite some promising preclinical and clinical data, it remains uncertain whether remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) with transient cycles of limb ischemia and reperfusion is an effective treatment for acute stroke. Objective: To evaluate the effect of RIC when initiated in the prehospital setting and continued in the hospital on functional outcome in patients with acute stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 stroke centers in Denmark that included 1500 patients with prehospital stroke symptoms for less than 4 hours (enrolled March 16, 2018, to November 11, 2022; final follow-up, February 3, 2023). Intervention: The intervention was delivered using an inflatable cuff on 1 upper extremity (RIC cuff pressure, ≤200 mm Hg [n = 749] and sham cuff pressure, 20 mm Hg [n = 751]). Each treatment application consisted of 5 cycles of 5 minutes of cuff inflation followed by 5 minutes of cuff deflation. Treatment was started in the ambulance and repeated at least once in the hospital and then twice daily for 7 days among a subset of participants. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was improvement in functional outcome measured as a shift across the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days in the target population with a final diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Results: Among 1500 patients who were randomized (median age, 71 years; 591 women [41%]), 1433 (96%) completed the trial. Of these, 149 patients (10%) were diagnosed with transient ischemic attack and 382 (27%) with a stroke mimic. In the remaining 902 patients with a target diagnosis of stroke (737 [82%] with ischemic stroke and 165 [18%] with intracerebral hemorrhage), 436 underwent RIC and 466 sham treatment. The median mRS score at 90 days was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the RIC group and 1 (IQR, 1-3) in the sham group. RIC treatment was not significantly associated with improved functional outcome at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.20, P =.67; absolute difference in median mRS score, -1; -1.7 to -0.25). In all randomized patients, there were no significant differences in the number of serious adverse events: 169 patients (23.7%) in the RIC group with 1 or more serious adverse events vs 175 patients (24.3%) in the sham group (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.11; P =.68). Upper extremity pain during treatment and/or skin petechia occurred in 54 (7.2%) in the RIC group and 11 (1.5%) in the sham group. Conclusions and Relevance: RIC initiated in the prehospital setting and continued in the hospital did not significantly improve functional outcome at 90 days in patients with acute stroke. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03481777.
|
|
| 2. |
- Korsholm, Kasper, et al.
(author)
-
Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion versus Novel Oral Anticoagulation for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Rationale and Design of the Multicenter Randomized Occlusion-AF Trial.
- 2021
-
In: American heart journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6744 .- 0002-8703. ; 243, s. 28-38
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasing globally, which is a major clinical and public health concern due to the five-fold increased risk of stroke. Oral anticoagulation with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is the current primary option for stroke prevention in patients with AF, although it increases the risk of major bleeding. Patients with prior ischemic cerebrovascular events are at particularly high risk of both recurrent ischemic events and major bleeding. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative option for stroke prevention in high-risk patients, however, with currently limited evidence. Thus, randomized trials comparing LAAO to NOACs are needed.The Occlusion-AF trial is designed to assess whether LAAO is non-inferior to NOAC therapy for reduction of the combined endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥ 3) and all-cause mortality in patients with AF and a recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).Investigator-initiated multicenter, multinational, randomized open-label non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome evaluation (PROBE design). Patients with documented AF, and an ischemic stroke or TIA within 6 months will be eligible for enrollment. Major exclusion criteria are modified Rankin Scale > 3 at enrollment, glomerular filtration rate < 15 ml/min, and life-expectancy less than 2 years. A total of 750 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either a NOAC or LAAO using the Amplatzer Amulet (Abbott, MN, USA) or Watchman FLX (Boston Scientific, MN, USA) with subsequent life-long aspirin 75 mg daily. Follow-up will be based on in-office and telephone follow-up in combination with long-term follow-up (10 years) through national hospital discharge registries in the individual Nordic countries. The primary outcome will be a composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding (BARC ≥ 3) and all-cause mortality at 2-year follow-up.The Occlusion-AF trial is designed to compare LAAO to NOAC therapy for secondary stroke prevention in AF patients with a high risk of recurrent thromboembolic events, i.e. with previous ischemic stroke or TIA, and otherwise eligible for anticoagulation. The results are expected to contribute significantly to the understanding of the effects of LAAO compared to the standard contemporary pharmacological treatment in these patients.
|
|
