Joseph P Broderick1, Yuko Y Palesch2, Andrew M Demchuk2, Sharon D Yeatts2, Pooja Khatri2, Michael D Hill2, Edward C Jauch2, Tudor G Jovin2, Bernard Yan2, Rüdiger von Kummer2, Carlos A Molina2, Mayank Goyal2, Mikael Mazighi2, Wouter J Schonewille2, Stefan T Engelter2, Craig Anderson2, Judith Spilker2, Janice Carrozzella2, L Scott Janis2, Lydia D Foster2, Thomas A Tomsick2. 1. From the Departments of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine and Radiology, University of Cincinnati Neuroscience Institute, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center, Cincinnati (J.P.B., P.K., J.S., J.C., T.A.T.); Department of Public Health Sciences (Y.Y.P, S.D.Y., L.D.F.) and the Division of Emergency Medicine (E.C.J.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Calgary Stroke Program, Seaman Family MR Research Centre, Departments of Clinical Neurosciences and Radiology, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada (A.M.D., M.D.H., M.G.); Stroke Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (T.G.J.); Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (B.Y.); Department of Neuroradiology, Dresden University Stroke Center, University Hospital, Dresden, Germany (R.v.K.); Neurovascular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona (C.A.M.); Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Utrecht and the Rudolph Magnus Institute of Neurosciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands, and the St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands (W.J.S.); Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris (M.M.); Department of Neurology, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland (S.T.E.); George Institute for Global Health, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney (C.A.); and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (L.S.J.). joseph.broderick@uc.edu. 2. From the Departments of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine and Radiology, University of Cincinnati Neuroscience Institute, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center, Cincinnati (J.P.B., P.K., J.S., J.C., T.A.T.); Department of Public Health Sciences (Y.Y.P, S.D.Y., L.D.F.) and the Division of Emergency Medicine (E.C.J.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Calgary Stroke Program, Seaman Family MR Research Centre, Departments of Clinical Neurosciences and Radiology, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada (A.M.D., M.D.H., M.G.); Stroke Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (T.G.J.); Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (B.Y.); Department of Neuroradiology, Dresden University Stroke Center, University Hospital, Dresden, Germany (R.v.K.); Neurovascular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona (C.A.M.); Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Utrecht and the Rudolph Magnus Institute of Neurosciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands, and the St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands (W.J.S.); Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris (M.M.); Department of Neurology, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland (S.T.E.); George Institute for Global Health, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney (C.A.); and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (L.S.J.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We explored changes in the patient population and practice of endovascular therapy during the course of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III Trial. METHODS: Changes in baseline characteristics, use of baseline CT angiography, treatment times and specifics, and outcomes were compared between the first 4 protocols and the fifth and final protocol. RESULTS: Compared with subjects treated in the first 4 protocol versions (n=610), subjects treated in fifth and final protocol (n=46) were older (75 versus 68 years, P<0.0002) and less likely to have a pretreatment Rankin of 0 (76% versus 89%, P=0.01), were more likely to have a pretreatment CT angiography (65% versus 45%, P=0.009), had quicker median times in the endovascular arm from onset to start of intra-arterial therapy (209 versus 250 minutes, P=0.002) and to reperfusion (269 versus 344 minutes, P<0.0001), had a higher mean dose of total tissue-type plasminogen activator in the endovascular arm (74.0 versus 63.7 mg, P<0.0001), and were less likely to receive intra-arterial tissue-type plasminogen activator as part of the endovascular procedure (16% versus 44%, P=0.015). There were no significant differences in functional and safety outcomes between subjects treated in the 2 treatments arms in either the first 4 protocols or fifth protocol although the small sample size in the fifth protocol provided limited power. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular technology and diagnostic approaches to acute stroke patients changed substantially during the IMS III Trial. Efforts to decrease the time to delivery of endovascular therapy were successful.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We explored changes in the patient population and practice of endovascular therapy during the course of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III Trial. METHODS: Changes in baseline characteristics, use of baseline CT angiography, treatment times and specifics, and outcomes were compared between the first 4 protocols and the fifth and final protocol. RESULTS: Compared with subjects treated in the first 4 protocol versions (n=610), subjects treated in fifth and final protocol (n=46) were older (75 versus 68 years, P<0.0002) and less likely to have a pretreatment Rankin of 0 (76% versus 89%, P=0.01), were more likely to have a pretreatment CT angiography (65% versus 45%, P=0.009), had quicker median times in the endovascular arm from onset to start of intra-arterial therapy (209 versus 250 minutes, P=0.002) and to reperfusion (269 versus 344 minutes, P<0.0001), had a higher mean dose of total tissue-type plasminogen activator in the endovascular arm (74.0 versus 63.7 mg, P<0.0001), and were less likely to receive intra-arterial tissue-type plasminogen activator as part of the endovascular procedure (16% versus 44%, P=0.015). There were no significant differences in functional and safety outcomes between subjects treated in the 2 treatments arms in either the first 4 protocols or fifth protocol although the small sample size in the fifth protocol provided limited power. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular technology and diagnostic approaches to acute strokepatients changed substantially during the IMS III Trial. Efforts to decrease the time to delivery of endovascular therapy were successful.
Authors: C A Lewandowski; M Frankel; T A Tomsick; J Broderick; J Frey; W Clark; S Starkman; J Grotta; J Spilker; J Khoury; T Brott Journal: Stroke Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Pooja Khatri; Sharon D Yeatts; Mikael Mazighi; Joseph P Broderick; David S Liebeskind; Andrew M Demchuk; Pierre Amarenco; Janice Carrozzella; Judith Spilker; Lydia D Foster; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill; Yuko Y Palesch; Edward C Jauch; E Clarke Haley; Achala Vagal; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-04-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Hashem M Shaltoni; Karen C Albright; Nicole R Gonzales; Raymond U Weir; Aslam M Khaja; Rebecca M Sugg; Morgan S Campbell; Edwin D Cacayorin; James C Grotta; Elizabeth A Noser Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey Gornbein; Jeffry R Alger; Val Nenov; Zahra Ajani; Lei Feng; Brett C Meyer; Scott Olson; Lee H Schwamm; Albert J Yoo; Randolph S Marshall; Philip M Meyers; Dileep R Yavagal; Max Wintermark; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Joseph P Broderick; Olvert A Berkhemer; Yuko Y Palesch; Diederik W J Dippel; Lydia D Foster; Yvo B W E M Roos; Aad van der Lugt; Thomas A Tomsick; Charles B L M Majoie; Wim H van Zwam; Andrew M Demchuk; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Pooja Khatri; Hester F Lingsma; Michael D Hill; Bob Roozenbeek; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig S Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Kit N Simpson Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ching-Jen Chen; Dale Ding; Robert M Starke; Prachi Mehndiratta; R Webster Crowley; Kenneth C Liu; Andrew M Southerland; Bradford B Worrall Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kit N Simpson; Annie N Simpson; Patrick D Mauldin; Yuko Y Palesch; Sharon D Yeatts; Dawn Kleindorfer; Thomas A Tomsick; Lydia D Foster; Andrew M Demchuk; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Joseph P Broderick Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 5.501