BACKGROUND: Whether brain imaging can identify patients who are most likely to benefit from therapies for acute ischemic stroke and whether endovascular thrombectomy improves clinical outcomes in such patients remains unclear. METHODS: In this study, we randomly assigned patients within 8 hours after the onset of large-vessel, anterior-circulation strokes to undergo mechanical embolectomy (Merci Retriever or Penumbra System) or receive standard care. All patients underwent pretreatment computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Randomization was stratified according to whether the patient had a favorable penumbral pattern (substantial salvageable tissue and small infarct core) or a nonpenumbral pattern (large core or small or absent penumbra). We assessed outcomes using the 90-day modified Rankin scale, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (dead). RESULTS: Among 118 eligible patients, the mean age was 65.5 years, the mean time to enrollment was 5.5 hours, and 58% had a favorable penumbral pattern. Revascularization in the embolectomy group was achieved in 67% of the patients. Ninety-day mortality was 21%, and the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was 4%; neither rate differed across groups. Among all patients, mean scores on the modified Rankin scale did not differ between embolectomy and standard care (3.9 vs. 3.9, P=0.99). Embolectomy was not superior to standard care in patients with either a favorable penumbral pattern (mean score, 3.9 vs. 3.4; P=0.23) or a nonpenumbral pattern (mean score, 4.0 vs. 4.4; P=0.32). In the primary analysis of scores on the 90-day modified Rankin scale, there was no interaction between the pretreatment imaging pattern and treatment assignment (P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: A favorable penumbral pattern on neuroimaging did not identify patients who would differentially benefit from endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke, nor was embolectomy shown to be superior to standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; MR RESCUE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00389467.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Whether brain imaging can identify patients who are most likely to benefit from therapies for acute ischemic stroke and whether endovascular thrombectomy improves clinical outcomes in such patients remains unclear. METHODS: In this study, we randomly assigned patients within 8 hours after the onset of large-vessel, anterior-circulation strokes to undergo mechanical embolectomy (Merci Retriever or Penumbra System) or receive standard care. All patients underwent pretreatment computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Randomization was stratified according to whether the patient had a favorable penumbral pattern (substantial salvageable tissue and small infarct core) or a nonpenumbral pattern (large core or small or absent penumbra). We assessed outcomes using the 90-day modified Rankin scale, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (dead). RESULTS: Among 118 eligible patients, the mean age was 65.5 years, the mean time to enrollment was 5.5 hours, and 58% had a favorable penumbral pattern. Revascularization in the embolectomy group was achieved in 67% of the patients. Ninety-day mortality was 21%, and the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was 4%; neither rate differed across groups. Among all patients, mean scores on the modified Rankin scale did not differ between embolectomy and standard care (3.9 vs. 3.9, P=0.99). Embolectomy was not superior to standard care in patients with either a favorable penumbral pattern (mean score, 3.9 vs. 3.4; P=0.23) or a nonpenumbral pattern (mean score, 4.0 vs. 4.4; P=0.32). In the primary analysis of scores on the 90-day modified Rankin scale, there was no interaction between the pretreatment imaging pattern and treatment assignment (P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: A favorable penumbral pattern on neuroimaging did not identify patients who would differentially benefit from endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke, nor was embolectomy shown to be superior to standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; MR RESCUE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00389467.).
Authors: Maarten G Lansberg; Matus Straka; Stephanie Kemp; Michael Mlynash; Lawrence R Wechsler; Tudor G Jovin; Michael J Wilder; Helmi L Lutsep; Todd J Czartoski; Richard A Bernstein; Cherylee W J Chang; Steven Warach; Franz Fazekas; Manabu Inoue; Aaryani Tipirneni; Scott A Hamilton; Greg Zaharchuk; Michael P Marks; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Mark Parsons; Neil Spratt; Andrew Bivard; Bruce Campbell; Kong Chung; Ferdinand Miteff; Bill O'Brien; Christopher Bladin; Patrick McElduff; Chris Allen; Grant Bateman; Geoffrey Donnan; Stephen Davis; Christopher Levi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Max Wintermark; Deidre A De Silva; Timothy J Schaewe; Reza Jahan; Sidney Starkman; Tudor Jovin; Jason Hom; Mouhammad Jumaa; Jeffrie Schreier; Jeffrey Gornbein; David S Liebeskind; Jeffry R Alger; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffry R Alger; Timothy J Schaewe; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Robert Elashoff; Jeffrey Gornbein; Val Nenov; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Raul G Nogueira; Helmi L Lutsep; Rishi Gupta; Tudor G Jovin; Gregory W Albers; Gary A Walker; David S Liebeskind; Wade S Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Reza Jahan; Elad I Levy; Tudor G Jovin; Blaise Baxter; Raul G Nogueira; Wayne Clark; Ronald Budzik; Osama O Zaidat Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M A Almekhlafi; A Davalos; A Bonafe; R Chapot; J Gralla; V M Pereira; M Goyal Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Rui Wang; Songlin Yu; Jeffry R Alger; Zhentao Zuo; Juan Chen; Rong Wang; Jing An; Bo Wang; Jizong Zhao; Rong Xue; Danny J J Wang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J H Kwak; L Zhao; J K Kim; S Park; D-G Lee; J H Shim; D H Lee; J S Kim; D C Suh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.825