Sunil A Sheth1, Jeffrey L Saver2, Sidney Starkman3, Ileana D Grunberg3, Judy Guzy3, Latisha K Ali2, Doojin Kim2, Nestor R Gonzalez4, Reza Jahan5, Satoshi Tateshima5, Gary Duckwiler5, David S Liebeskind2. 1. Department of Neurology, Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selection bias may have affected enrollment in first generation endovascular stroke trials. We investigate, evaluate, and quantify such bias for these trials at our institution. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, imaging, and angiographic data were prospectively collected on a consecutive cohort of patients with acute ischemic stroke who were enrolled in formal trials of endovascular stroke therapy (EST) or received EST in clinical practice outside of a randomized trial for acute cerebral ischemia at a single tertiary referral center from September 2004 to December 2012. RESULTS: Among patients considered appropriate for EST in practice, 47% were eligible for trials, with rates for individual trials ranging from 17% to 70%. Compared with trial ineligible patients treated with EST, trial eligible patients were younger (67 vs. 74 years; p<0.05), more often treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (53% vs. 34%; p<0.01), and had shorter last known well to puncture times (328 vs. 367 min; p<0.05). Focusing on the largest trial with a non-interventional control arm, compared with trial eligible patients treated with EST outside the trial, enrolled patients presented later (274 vs. 163 min; p<0.001), had higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (20 vs. 17; p<0.05), and larger strokes (diffusion weighted imaging volumes 49 vs. 18; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients felt suitable for EST at our institution were excluded from recent trials. Formal entry criteria succeeded in selecting patients with better prognostic features, although many of these patients were treated outside of trials. Acknowledging and mitigating these biases will be crucial to ongoing investigations. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: Selection bias may have affected enrollment in first generation endovascular stroke trials. We investigate, evaluate, and quantify such bias for these trials at our institution. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, imaging, and angiographic data were prospectively collected on a consecutive cohort of patients with acute ischemic stroke who were enrolled in formal trials of endovascular stroke therapy (EST) or received EST in clinical practice outside of a randomized trial for acute cerebral ischemia at a single tertiary referral center from September 2004 to December 2012. RESULTS: Among patients considered appropriate for EST in practice, 47% were eligible for trials, with rates for individual trials ranging from 17% to 70%. Compared with trial ineligible patients treated with EST, trial eligible patients were younger (67 vs. 74 years; p<0.05), more often treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (53% vs. 34%; p<0.01), and had shorter last known well to puncture times (328 vs. 367 min; p<0.05). Focusing on the largest trial with a non-interventional control arm, compared with trial eligible patients treated with EST outside the trial, enrolled patients presented later (274 vs. 163 min; p<0.001), had higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (20 vs. 17; p<0.05), and larger strokes (diffusion weighted imaging volumes 49 vs. 18; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients felt suitable for EST at our institution were excluded from recent trials. Formal entry criteria succeeded in selecting patients with better prognostic features, although many of these patients were treated outside of trials. Acknowledging and mitigating these biases will be crucial to ongoing investigations. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Michel Shamy; Bijoy K Menon; Jeffrey L Saver; Hans-Christoph Diener; J Mocco; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Tudor G Jovin; Osama Zaidat; Elad I Levy; Antoni Davalos; Andrew Demchuk; Michael D Hill Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Aekaterini Galimanis; Simon Jung; Marie-Luise Mono; Urs Fischer; Oliver Findling; Anja Weck; Niklaus Meier; Gian Marco De Marchis; Caspar Brekenfeld; Marwan El-Koussy; Heinrich P Mattle; Marcel Arnold; Gerhard Schroth; Jan Gralla Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Felipe C Albuquerque; David Fiorella; Joshua A Hirsch; Charles Prestigiacomo; Robert W Tarr Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Aquilla S Turk; Eric MacKenzie Nyberg; M Imran Chaudry; Raymond D Turner; Jordan Asher Magarik; Joyce S Nicholas; Christine A Holmstedt; Julio Alejandro Chalela; Angela Hays; Christos Lazaridis; Marc I Chimowitz; Tanya N Turan; Robert J Adams; Edward C Jauch Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 5.836
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: Srikant Rangaraju; Kumiko Owada; Ali Reza Noorian; Raul G Nogueira; Fadi Nahab; Brenda A Glenn; Samir R Belagaje; Aaron M Anderson; Michael R Frankel; Rishi Gupta Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Fatih Seker; Johannes Pfaff; Arne Potreck; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Peter A Ringleb; Martin Bendszus; Markus A Möhlenbruch Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.708