BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial showed a trend for reduced all-cause mortality and positive secondary safety end point outcomes. We present further analyses of the mortality and severe disability data from the Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the NeuroFlo catheter in patients with stroke. The current analysis was performed on the as-treated population. All-cause and stroke-related mortality rates at 90 days were compared between groups, and logistic regression models were fit to obtain ORs and 95% CIs for the treated versus not-treated groups. We categorized death-associated serious adverse events as neurologic versus non-neurologic events and performed multiple logistic regression analyses. We analyzed severe disability and mortality by outcomes of the mRS. Patient allocation was gathered by use of a poststudy survey. RESULTS: All-cause mortality trended in favor of treated patients (11.5% versus 16.1%; P = .079) and stroke-related mortality was significantly reduced in treated patients (7.5% versus 14.2%; P = .009). Logistic regression analysis for freedom from stroke-related mortality favored treatment (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.22, 4.77; P = .012). Treated patients had numerically fewer neurologic causes of stroke-related deaths (52.9% versus 73.0%; P = .214). Among the 90-day survivors, nominally fewer treated patients were severely disabled (mRS 5) (5.6% versus 7.5%; OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.72, 4.14; P = .223). Differences in allocation of care did not account for the reduced mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: There were consistent reductions in all-cause and stroke-related mortality in the NeuroFlo-treated patients. This reduction in mortality did not result in an increase in severe disability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial showed a trend for reduced all-cause mortality and positive secondary safety end point outcomes. We present further analyses of the mortality and severe disability data from the Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the NeuroFlo catheter in patients with stroke. The current analysis was performed on the as-treated population. All-cause and stroke-related mortality rates at 90 days were compared between groups, and logistic regression models were fit to obtain ORs and 95% CIs for the treated versus not-treated groups. We categorized death-associated serious adverse events as neurologic versus non-neurologic events and performed multiple logistic regression analyses. We analyzed severe disability and mortality by outcomes of the mRS. Patient allocation was gathered by use of a poststudy survey. RESULTS: All-cause mortality trended in favor of treated patients (11.5% versus 16.1%; P = .079) and stroke-related mortality was significantly reduced in treated patients (7.5% versus 14.2%; P = .009). Logistic regression analysis for freedom from stroke-related mortality favored treatment (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.22, 4.77; P = .012). Treated patients had numerically fewer neurologic causes of stroke-related deaths (52.9% versus 73.0%; P = .214). Among the 90-day survivors, nominally fewer treated patients were severely disabled (mRS 5) (5.6% versus 7.5%; OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.72, 4.14; P = .223). Differences in allocation of care did not account for the reduced mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: There were consistent reductions in all-cause and stroke-related mortality in the NeuroFlo-treated patients. This reduction in mortality did not result in an increase in severe disability.
Authors: Peter D Schellinger; Philip M W Bath; Kennedy R Lees; Natan M Bornstein; Eitan Uriel; Wolfgang Eisert; Didier Leys Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Ashfaq Shuaib; Natan M Bornstein; Hans-Christoph Diener; William Dillon; Marc Fisher; Maxim D Hammer; Carlos A Molina; J Neal Rutledge; Jeffrey L Saver; Peter D Schellinger; Harish Shownkeen Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Gregory W Albers; Vincent N Thijs; Lawrence Wechsler; Stephanie Kemp; Gottfried Schlaug; Elaine Skalabrin; Roland Bammer; Wataru Kakuda; Maarten G Lansberg; Ashfaq Shuaib; William Coplin; Scott Hamilton; Michael Moseley; Michael P Marks Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Derek J Emery; Peter D Schellinger; Daniel Selchen; Andre G Douen; Richard Chan; Ashfaq Shuaib; Kenneth S Butcher Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael Mlynash; Maarten G Lansberg; Deidre A De Silva; Jun Lee; Soren Christensen; Matus Straka; Bruce C V Campbell; Roland Bammer; Jean-Marc Olivot; Patricia Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis; Gregory W Albers Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Mark W Parsons; Christopher Levi; Kenneth S Butcher; Andre Peeters; P Alan Barber; Christopher Bladin; Deidre A De Silva; Graham Byrnes; Jonathan B Chalk; John N Fink; Thomas E Kimber; David Schultz; Peter J Hand; Judith Frayne; Graeme Hankey; Keith Muir; Richard Gerraty; Brian M Tress; Patricia M Desmond Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Eric Jüttler; Peter D Schellinger; Alfred Aschoff; Klaus Zweckberger; Andreas Unterberg; Werner Hacke Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Thanh G Phan; Jian Chen; Richard Beare; Henry Ma; Benjamin Clissold; John Van Ly; Velandai Srikanth Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.003