BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The DIAS-2 study was the only large, randomized, intravenous, thrombolytic trial that selected patients based on the presence of ischemic penumbra. However, DIAS-2 did not confirm the positive findings of the smaller DEDAS and DIAS trials, which also used penumbral selection. Therefore, a reevaluation of the penumbra selection strategy is warranted. METHODS: In post hoc analyses we assessed the relationships of magnetic resonance imaging-measured lesion volumes with clinical measures in DIAS-2, and the relationships of the presence and size of the diffusion-perfusion mismatch with the clinical effect of desmoteplase in DIAS-2 and in pooled data from DIAS, DEDAS, and DIAS-2. RESULTS: In DIAS-2, lesion volumes correlated with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at both baseline and final time points (P<0.0001), and lesion growth was inversely related to good clinical outcome (P=0.004). In the pooled analysis, desmoteplase was associated with 47% clinical response rate (n=143) vs 34% in placebo (n=73; P=0.08). For both the pooled sample and for DIAS-2, increasing the minimum baseline mismatch volume (MMV) for inclusion increased the desmoteplase effect size. The odds ratio for good clinical response between desmoteplase and placebo treatment was 2.83 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-6.94; P=0.023) for MMV >60 mL. Increasing the minimum NIHSS score for inclusion did not affect treatment effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled across all desmoteplase trials, desmoteplase appears beneficial in patients with large MMV and ineffective in patients with small MMV. These results support a modified diffusion-perfusion mismatch hypothesis for patient selection in later time-window thrombolytic trials. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifiers: NCT00638781, NCT00638248, NCT00111852.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The DIAS-2 study was the only large, randomized, intravenous, thrombolytic trial that selected patients based on the presence of ischemic penumbra. However, DIAS-2 did not confirm the positive findings of the smaller DEDAS and DIAS trials, which also used penumbral selection. Therefore, a reevaluation of the penumbra selection strategy is warranted. METHODS: In post hoc analyses we assessed the relationships of magnetic resonance imaging-measured lesion volumes with clinical measures in DIAS-2, and the relationships of the presence and size of the diffusion-perfusion mismatch with the clinical effect of desmoteplase in DIAS-2 and in pooled data from DIAS, DEDAS, and DIAS-2. RESULTS: In DIAS-2, lesion volumes correlated with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at both baseline and final time points (P<0.0001), and lesion growth was inversely related to good clinical outcome (P=0.004). In the pooled analysis, desmoteplase was associated with 47% clinical response rate (n=143) vs 34% in placebo (n=73; P=0.08). For both the pooled sample and for DIAS-2, increasing the minimum baseline mismatch volume (MMV) for inclusion increased the desmoteplase effect size. The odds ratio for good clinical response between desmoteplase and placebo treatment was 2.83 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-6.94; P=0.023) for MMV >60 mL. Increasing the minimum NIHSS score for inclusion did not affect treatment effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled across all desmoteplase trials, desmoteplase appears beneficial in patients with large MMV and ineffective in patients with small MMV. These results support a modified diffusion-perfusion mismatch hypothesis for patient selection in later time-window thrombolytic trials. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifiers: NCT00638781, NCT00638248, NCT00111852.
Authors: Hongyu An; Andria L Ford; Yasheng Chen; Hongtu Zhu; Rosana Ponisio; Gyanendra Kumar; Amirali Modir Shanechi; Naim Khoury; Katie D Vo; Jennifer Williams; Colin P Derdeyn; Michael N Diringer; Peter Panagos; William J Powers; Jin-Moo Lee; Weili Lin Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Shervin Kamalian; Andre Kemmling; Roderick C Borgie; Livia T Morais; Seyedmehdi Payabvash; Ana M Franceschi; Shahmir Kamalian; Albert J Yoo; Karen L Furie; Michael H Lev Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: S Prabhakaran; M Soltanolkotabi; A R Honarmand; R A Bernstein; V H Lee; J J Conners; F Dehkordi-Vakil; A Shaibani; M C Hurley; S A Ansari Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Luby; J Hong; J G Merino; J K Lynch; A W Hsia; A Magadán; S S Song; L L Latour; S Warach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Won Hyung A Ryu; Michael B Avery; Navjit Dharampal; Isabel E Allen; Steven W Hetts Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 5.836