| Literature DB >> 29987421 |
K C J Compagne1,2, A M M Boers3,4,5, H A Marquering3,4, O A Berkhemer6,7,3, A J Yoo8, L F M Beenen3, R J van Oostenbrugge9,10, W H van Zwam10,11, Y B W E M Roos12, C B Majoie3, A C G M van Es6, A van der Lugt6, D W J Dippel7, H Lingsma13.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The putative mechanism for the favourable effect of endovascular treatment (EVT) on functional outcome after acute ischaemic stroke is preventing follow-up infarct volume (FIV) progression. We aimed to assess to what extent difference in FIV explains the effect of EVT on functional outcome in a randomised trial of EVT versus no EVT (MR CLEAN).Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Causality; Outcome; Stroke; Thrombectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29987421 PMCID: PMC6302877 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5578-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 2Case examples of follow-up infarct (FIV) segmentation on non-contrast CT, acquired between 5 and 7 days after onset. (a and b) A 56-year-old male with right-sided M1 occlusion. FIV was 292 ml and this patient was severely disabled at 90 days (mRS 5). (c and d) A 45-year-old female with right-sided M1 occlusion. FIV was 10 ml and the patient showed no significant disability at 90 days, despite some symptoms (mRS 1)
Fig. 1Causal diagram showing the mediation model. Arrows are the causal direction or possible association
Fig. 3Flowchart of included patients in the primary analysis
Baseline characteristics of analysed patients (n=436)
| Intervention group | Control group | Excluded patients | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (men) (%) | 117 (59.1) | 134 (56.3) | 41 (64.1) |
| Age (y, median [IQR]) | 63.47 [53.3 - 73.4] | 65.67 [55.1 - 76.4] | 71.40 [61.8 – 79.9] |
| Pre-stroke mRS≤2 (%) | 191 (96.5) | 229 (96.2) | 59 (92.2) |
| NIHSS at baseline (median [IQR]) | 17.00 [14.0 - 20.8] | 17.00 (14.0 - 21.8) | 21.00 [17.0 – 23.0] |
| Treatment with intravenous alteplase (%) | 177 (89.4) | 216 (90.8) | 52 (81.2) |
| Time from onset to randomisation (median [IQR]) | 200.00 [150.0 - 250.0] | 194.00 [148.8 - 266.8] | 212.00 [174.0 – 258.3] |
| Smoking (%) | 59 (29.8) | 72 (30.3) | 12 (18.8) |
| Diabetes (%) | 23 (11.6) | 29 (12.2) | 16 (25.0) |
| Atrial fibrillation (%) | 54 (27.3) | 65 (27.1) | 16 (25.0) |
| Previous stroke (%) | 23 (11.6) | 20 (8.4) | 11 (17.2) |
| Location of intracranial occlusion (%) # | |||
| ICA | 1 (0.5) | 3 (1.3) | - |
| ICA terminus | 50 (25.3) | 65 (27.3) | 19 (29.7) |
| M1 | 129 (65.2) | 146 (61.6) | 44 (68.8) |
| M2 | 17 (8.6) | 21 (8.9) | 1 (1.6) |
| A2 | 1 (0.5) | 2 (0.8) | - |
| ASPECTS ≥ 8 (%) § | 150 (75.0) | 194 (82.6) | 32 (50.8) |
§ Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating fewer early ischaemic changes. Data were missing for three patients in the control group
# Location of intracranial occlusion could not be assessed in one patient in the control group due to non-performed vessel imaging
IQR interquartile range
Explained proportions and effect sizes in the mediation analyses of the effect of intervention on functional outcome mediated by follow-up infarct volume (FIV)
| Pathway* | Unadjusted analysis | Adjusted analyses | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect parameter | Primary analysis (n=436) | Effect parameter | Primary analysis (n=436) | Sensitivity analysis 1 (n=500) | Sensitivity analysis 2 (n=436) | ||||||
| Value | (95% CI) | Value | (95% CI) | Value | (95% CI) | Value | (95% CI) | ||||
| A | ( X → M ) | Beta | -0.34 | (-0.64 – -0.05) | Beta | -0.37 | (-0.65 – -0.09) | -0.21 | (-0.49 – 0.06) | -0.38 | (-0.64 – -0.11) |
| B | ( M → Y ) | cOR | 0.59 | (0.52 – 0.66) | acOR | 0.58 | (0.51 – 0.66) | 0.63 | (0.56 – 0.70) | 0.49 | (0.42 – 0.56) |
| C | ( X → Y ) | cOR | 2.22 | (1.58 – 3.13) | acOR | 2.30 | (1.62 – 3.26) | 1.78 | (1.29 – 2.46) | 2.30 | (1.62 – 3.26) |
| A-B | ( X + M → Y) | cOR | 2.03 | (1.44 – 2.86) | acOR | 2.05 | (1.44 – 2.91) | 1.66 | (1.20 – 2.30) | 2.04 | (1.43 – 2.90) |
| ß FIV # | OR | 0.60 | (0.53 – 0.67) | OR | 0.60 | (0.52 – 0.67) | 0.66 | (0.58 – 0.74) | 0.49 | (0.43 – 0.56) | |
| Explained proportion | % | 14 | (0 – 34) | 12 | (0 – 43) | 15 | (0 - 38) | ||||
*Each pathway is shown in Fig. 1. X, independent variable (intervention- or control group). M, mediator variable (follow-up infarct volume), Y, dependent variable (functional outcome)
# ß, coefficient of FIV (mediator) in pathway A-B must be a significant predictor of the dependent variable, while controlling for the independent variable
cOR common odds ratio, acOR adjusted common odds ratio, 95% CI, 95% confidence interval
Imaging outcomes regarding reperfusion on DSA after intervention
| Intervention group | Control group (NA) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Reperfusion grades on DSA (%) and median follow-up infarct volumes (ml) [IQR] # | |||
| 0 | 18 (11) | 107 [58-246] | - |
| 1 | 9 (5) | 137 [62-222] | - |
| 2a | 32 (19) | 55 [30-118] | - |
| 2b | 64 (39) | 41 [21-93] | - |
| 3 | 43 (26) | 56 [35-105] | - |
#Assessed by the modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI): 0 – no reperfusion, 1 – antegrade flow past the initial occlusion, but limited distal branch filling with little or slow distal reperfusion, 2a – antegrade reperfusion of less than half of the previously ischaemic territory, 2b – antegrade reperfusion of more than half of the previously ischaemic territory, 3 – complete antegrade reperfusion of the previously ischaemic territory, with absence of visualised occlusion in all distal branches. Scores were not available for 32 (19%) patients in the intervention group
Imaging outcomes regarding recanalisation on CTA at 24-hours
| Intervention group | Control group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recanalisation status on follow up CTA (%) and median follow-up infarct volumes (mL) [IQR] # | ||||
| 0 | 16 (9%) | 200 [65-324] | 59 (31%) | 93 [48-141] |
| 1 | 4 (2%) | 168 [104-231] | 18 (9%) | 103 [82-126] |
| 2 | 15 (9%) | 24 [12-61] | 46 (24%) | 82 [33-117] |
| 3 | 138 (80%) | 47 [23-86] | 67 (35%) | 51 [19-82] |
#Assessed by the modified Arterial Occlusive Lesion (mAOL) score on CTA at 24 h: 0 – no recanalisation of primary intracranial occlusion, 1 – incomplete or partial recanalisation of the primary intracranial occlusion without contrast passage, 2 – incomplete or partial recanalisation of the primary intracranial occlusion with contrast passage, 3 – complete recanalisation of the primary intracranial occlusion. Values were missing for 25 (13%) patients in the intervention group and 48 (20%) patients in the control group
IQR interquartile range