OBJECTIVE: To consolidate the evidence from randomized trials for the use of endovascular therapy (ET) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We searched major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus) from their inception to February 12, 2013, for randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of ET compared with standard of care for acute ischemic stroke. Pooled absolute and relative risk estimates were synthesized by using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by using Q statistic and I(2) statistic. Subset analysis was performed for patients with severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥20). The study was conducted from January 15, 2013 to April 30, 2013. RESULTS: Of the 1252 retrieved articles, 5 randomized trials enrolling 1197 patients with acute ischemic stroke were included. Seven hundred eleven patients received ET, and 486 received intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator. There was no significant improvement in any of the outcomes in patients receiving ET compared with those receiving IV thrombolysis. On subgroup analysis, ET was found to have better outcomes in patients with severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥20), showing a dose-response gradient and improving excellent, good, and fair outcomes by an additional 4%, 7%, and 13%, respectively, compared with IV thrombolysis. CONCLUSION: Overall, ET is not superior to IV thrombolysis for acute ischemic strokes (level B recommendation). However, ET showed promise and improved outcomes in patients with severe strokes, but the evidence is limited due to sample size. There is a need for further trials evaluating the role of ET in this high-risk group.
OBJECTIVE: To consolidate the evidence from randomized trials for the use of endovascular therapy (ET) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We searched major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus) from their inception to February 12, 2013, for randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of ET compared with standard of care for acute ischemic stroke. Pooled absolute and relative risk estimates were synthesized by using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by using Q statistic and I(2) statistic. Subset analysis was performed for patients with severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥20). The study was conducted from January 15, 2013 to April 30, 2013. RESULTS: Of the 1252 retrieved articles, 5 randomized trials enrolling 1197 patients with acute ischemic stroke were included. Seven hundred eleven patients received ET, and 486 received intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator. There was no significant improvement in any of the outcomes in patients receiving ET compared with those receiving IV thrombolysis. On subgroup analysis, ET was found to have better outcomes in patients with severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥20), showing a dose-response gradient and improving excellent, good, and fair outcomes by an additional 4%, 7%, and 13%, respectively, compared with IV thrombolysis. CONCLUSION: Overall, ET is not superior to IV thrombolysis for acute ischemic strokes (level B recommendation). However, ET showed promise and improved outcomes in patients with severe strokes, but the evidence is limited due to sample size. There is a need for further trials evaluating the role of ET in this high-risk group.
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Elsayed Z Soliman; Paul D Sorlie; Nona Sotoodehnia; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 29.690
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: A Ciccone; L Valvassori; M Ponzio; E Ballabio; R Gasparotti; M Sessa; F Scomazzoni; P Tiraboschi; R Sterzi Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Joseph P Broderick; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Frank L Silver; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Bart M Demaerschalk; Ronald Budzik; Wayne M Clark; Osama O Zaidat; Tim W Malisch; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Renée H Martin; Lydia D Foster; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E Broussalis; E Trinka; W Hitzl; A Wallner; V Chroust; M Killer-Oberpfalzer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sanjith Aaron; N K Shyamkumar; Sunithi Alexander; P Suresh Babu; A T Prabhakar; Vinu Moses; T V Murthy; Mathew Alexander Journal: Ann Indian Acad Neurol Date: 2016 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 1.383
Authors: Chad K Bush; Dayaamayi Kurimella; Lee J S Cross; Katherine R Conner; Sheryl Martin-Schild; Jiang He; Changwei Li; Jing Chen; Tanika Kelly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240