| 1. |
- Goyal, Nitin, et al.
(författare)
-
Medical Management vs Mechanical Thrombectomy for Mild Strokes: An International Multicenter Study and Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JAMA Neurology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2168-6149. ; 77:1, s. 16-24
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2019 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Importance: The benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with stroke presenting with mild deficits (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score <6) owing to emergency large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the outcomes of patients with mild-deficits ELVO (mELVO) treated with MT vs best medical management (bMM). Data Sources: We retrospectively pooled patients with mELVO during a 5-year period from 16 centers. A meta-analysis of studies reporting efficacy and safety outcomes with MT or bMM among patients with mELVO was also conducted. Data were analyzed between 2013 and 2017. Study Selection: We identified studies that enrolled patients with stroke (within 24 hours of symptom onset) with mELVO treated with MT or bMM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Efficacy outcomes included 3-month favorable functional outcome and 3-month functional independence that were defined as modified Rankin Scale scores of 0 to 1 and 0 to 2, respectively. Safety outcomes included 3-month mortality and symptomatic and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results: We evaluated a total of 251 patients with mELVO who were treated with MT (n = 138; 65 women; mean age, 65.2 years; median NIHSS score, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 3-5) or bMM (n = 113; 51 women; mean age, 64.8; median NIHSS score, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 2-4). The rate of asymptomatic ICH was lower in bMM (4.6% vs 17.5%; P =.002), while the rate of 3-month FI (after imputation of missing follow-up evaluations) was lower in MT (77.4% vs 88.5%; P =.02). The 2 groups did not differ in any other efficacy or safety outcomes. In multivariable analyses, MT was associated with higher odds of asymptomatic ICH (odds ratio [OR], 11.07; 95% CI, 1.31-93.53; P =.03). In the meta-analysis of 4 studies (843 patients), MT was associated with higher odds of symptomatic ICH in unadjusted analyses (OR, 5.52; 95% CI, 1.91-15.49; P =.002; I2 = 0%). This association did not retain its significance in adjusted analyses including 2 studies (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.49-8.63; P =.32; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis did not document any other independent associations between treatment groups and safety or efficacy outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Our multicenter study coupled with the meta-analysis suggests similar outcomes of MT and bMM in patients with stroke with mELVO, but no conclusions about treatment effect can be made. The clinical equipoise can further be resolved by a randomized clinical trial.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ospel, Johanna M., et al.
(författare)
-
What is a Challenging Clot? : A DELPHI Consensus Statement from the CLOTS 7.0 Summit
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Clinical Neuroradiology. - 1869-1439 .- 1869-1447. ; 33:4, s. 1007-1016
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Predicting a challenging clot when performing mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke can be difficult. One reason for this difficulty is a lack of agreement on how to precisely define these clots. We explored the opinions of stroke thrombectomy and clot research experts regarding challenging clots, defined as difficult to recanalize clots by endovascular approaches, and clot/patient features that may be indicative of such clots. Methods: A modified DELPHI technique was used before and during the CLOTS 7.0 Summit, which included experts in thrombectomy and clot research from different specialties. The first round included open-ended questions and the second and final rounds each consisted of 30 closed-ended questions, 29 on various clinical and clot features, and 1 on number of passes before switching techniques. Consensus was defined as agreement ≥ 50%. Features with consensus and rated ≥ 3 out of 4 on the certainty scale were included in the definition of a challenging clot. Results: Three DELPHI rounds were performed. Panelists achieved consensus on 16/30 questions, of which 8 were rated 3 or 4 on the certainty scale, namely white-colored clots (mean certainty score 3.1), calcified clots under histology (3.7) and imaging (3.7), stiff clots (3.0), sticky/adherent clots (3.1), hard clots (3.1), difficult to pass clots (3.1) and clots that are resistant to pulling (3.0). Most panelists considered switching endovascular treatment (EVT) techniques after 2–3 unsuccessful attempts. Conclusion: This DELPHI consensus identified 8 distinct features of a challenging clot. The varying degree of certainty amongst the panelists emphasizes the need for more pragmatic studies to enable accurate a priori identification of such occlusions prior to EVT.
|
|
