Luis San Román1, Bijoy K Menon2, Jordi Blasco1, María Hernández-Pérez3, Antoni Dávalos3, Charles B L M Majoie4, Bruce C V Campbell5, Francis Guillemin6, Hester Lingsma7, René Anxionnat8, Jonathan Epstein9, Jeffrey L Saver10, Henk Marquering11, John H Wong2, Demetrius Lopes12, Gernot Reimann13, Hubert Desal14, Diederik W J Dippel15, Shelagh Coutts2, Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont16, Dileep Yavagal17, Jean Christophe Ferre18, Yvo B W E M Roos19, David S Liebeskind20, Robert Lenthall21, Carlos Molina22, Fahad S Al Ajlan23, Vivek Reddy24, Dar Dowlatshahi25, Nader-Antoine Sourour26, Catherine Oppenheim27, Alim P Mitha2, Stephen M Davis5, Christian Weimar28, Robert J van Oostenbrugge29, Erik Cobo30, Timothy J Kleinig31, Geoffrey A Donnan32, Aad van der Lugt33, Andrew M Demchuk2, Olvert A Berkhemer34, Anna M M Boers11, Gary A Ford35, Keith W Muir36, B Scott Brown37, Tudor Jovin38, Wim H van Zwam39, Peter J Mitchell40, Michael D Hill2, Phil White41, Serge Bracard8, Mayank Goyal42. 1. Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Imaging Diagnostic Center, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Foothills Hospital, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. Department of Neuroscience, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 5. Department of Medicine and Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, INSERM, CHRU, Université de Lorraine, CHRU de Nancy-Hopitaux de Brabois, Nancy, France. 7. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 8. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, INSERM U947, University of Lorraine and University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, Lorraine, France. 9. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, INSERM CIC 1433, University of Lorraine and University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, Lorraine, France. 10. Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 11. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 12. Department of Neurosurgery and Radiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 13. Stroke-Unit und Neurologische Intensivstation, Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH, Dortmund, Germany. 14. Department of Neuroradiology, University and University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, France. 15. Department of Neurology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 16. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany. 17. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, USA. 18. Department of Neuroradiology, University of Rennes 1 and University Hospital Rennes, Rennes, France. 19. Department of Neurology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 20. Department of Neurology and Comprehensive Stroke Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 21. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. 22. Stroke Unit, Vall d'Hebrón Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 23. Department of Medicine (Neurology), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 24. Department of Neurology, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 25. Department of Medicine (Neurology), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine (Neurology), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 26. Department of Neuroradiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris Hospitals Public Assistance, Paris, France. 27. Department of Neuroradiology, INSERM U894, Sainte-Anne Hospital and Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France. 28. Department of Neurology and Stroke Unit, University of Essen, Essen, Germany. 29. Department of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands. 30. Barcelona-Tech, Barcelona, Spain. 31. Department of Neurology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 32. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 33. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 34. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Neurology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands. 35. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Science Park, Oxford, UK. 36. Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK. 37. Altair Biostatistics, St Louis Park, MN, USA. 38. Stroke Institute, Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 39. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Institute (CARIM), Maastricht, Netherlands. 40. Department of Radiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 41. Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 42. Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Foothills Hospital, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: mgoyal@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding whether imaging can be used effectively to select patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is scarce. We aimed to investigate the association between baseline imaging features and safety and efficacy of EVT in acute ischaemic stroke caused by anterior large-vessel occlusion. METHODS: In this meta-analysis of individual patient-level data, the HERMES collaboration identified in PubMed seven randomised trials in endovascular stroke that compared EVT with standard medical therapy, published between Jan 1, 2010, and Oct 31, 2017. Only trials that required vessel imaging to identify patients with proximal anterior circulation ischaemic stroke and that used predominantly stent retrievers or second-generation neurothrombectomy devices in the EVT group were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane handbook methodology. Central investigators, masked to clinical information other than stroke side, categorised baseline imaging features of ischaemic change with the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) or according to involvement of more than 33% of middle cerebral artery territory, and by thrombus volume, hyperdensity, and collateral status. The primary endpoint was neurological functional disability scored on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days after randomisation. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, parenchymal haematoma type 2 within 5 days of randomisation, and mortality within 90 days. For the primary analysis, we used mixed-methods ordinal logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at admission, intravenous alteplase, and time from onset to randomisation, and we used interaction terms to test whether imaging categorisation at baseline modifies the association between treatment and outcome. This meta-analysis was prospectively designed by the HERMES executive committee but has not been registered. FINDINGS: Among 1764 pooled patients, 871 were allocated to the EVT group and 893 to the control group. Risk of bias was low except in the THRACE study, which used unblinded assessment of outcomes 90 days after randomisation and MRI predominantly as the primary baseline imaging tool. The overall treatment effect favoured EVT (adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] for a shift towards better outcome on the mRS 2·00, 95% CI 1·69-2·38; p<0·0001). EVT achieved better outcomes at 90 days than standard medical therapy alone across a broad range of baseline imaging categories. Mortality at 90 days (14·7% vs 17·3%, p=0·15), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (3·8% vs 3·5%, p=0·90), and parenchymal haematoma type 2 (5·6% vs 4·8%, p=0·52) did not differ between the EVT and control groups. No treatment effect modification by baseline imaging features was noted for mortality at 90 days and parenchymal haematoma type 2. Among patients with ASPECTS 0-4, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was seen in ten (19%) of 52 patients in the EVT group versus three (5%) of 66 patients in the control group (adjusted cOR 3·94, 95% CI 0·94-16·49; pinteraction=0·025), and among patients with more than 33% involvement of middle cerebral artery territory, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was observed in 15 (14%) of 108 patients in the EVT group versus four (4%) of 113 patients in the control group (4·17, 1·30-13·44, pinteraction=0·012). INTERPRETATION: EVT achieves better outcomes at 90 days than standard medical therapy across a broad range of baseline imaging categories, including infarcts affecting more than 33% of middle cerebral artery territory or ASPECTS less than 6, although in these patients the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was higher in the EVT group than the control group. This analysis provides preliminary evidence for potential use of EVT in patients with large infarcts at baseline. FUNDING: Medtronic.
BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding whether imaging can be used effectively to select patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is scarce. We aimed to investigate the association between baseline imaging features and safety and efficacy of EVT in acute ischaemic stroke caused by anterior large-vessel occlusion. METHODS: In this meta-analysis of individual patient-level data, the HERMES collaboration identified in PubMed seven randomised trials in endovascular stroke that compared EVT with standard medical therapy, published between Jan 1, 2010, and Oct 31, 2017. Only trials that required vessel imaging to identify patients with proximal anterior circulation ischaemic stroke and that used predominantly stent retrievers or second-generation neurothrombectomy devices in the EVT group were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane handbook methodology. Central investigators, masked to clinical information other than stroke side, categorised baseline imaging features of ischaemic change with the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) or according to involvement of more than 33% of middle cerebral artery territory, and by thrombus volume, hyperdensity, and collateral status. The primary endpoint was neurological functional disability scored on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days after randomisation. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, parenchymal haematoma type 2 within 5 days of randomisation, and mortality within 90 days. For the primary analysis, we used mixed-methods ordinal logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at admission, intravenous alteplase, and time from onset to randomisation, and we used interaction terms to test whether imaging categorisation at baseline modifies the association between treatment and outcome. This meta-analysis was prospectively designed by the HERMES executive committee but has not been registered. FINDINGS: Among 1764 pooled patients, 871 were allocated to the EVT group and 893 to the control group. Risk of bias was low except in the THRACE study, which used unblinded assessment of outcomes 90 days after randomisation and MRI predominantly as the primary baseline imaging tool. The overall treatment effect favoured EVT (adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] for a shift towards better outcome on the mRS 2·00, 95% CI 1·69-2·38; p<0·0001). EVT achieved better outcomes at 90 days than standard medical therapy alone across a broad range of baseline imaging categories. Mortality at 90 days (14·7% vs 17·3%, p=0·15), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (3·8% vs 3·5%, p=0·90), and parenchymal haematoma type 2 (5·6% vs 4·8%, p=0·52) did not differ between the EVT and control groups. No treatment effect modification by baseline imaging features was noted for mortality at 90 days and parenchymal haematoma type 2. Among patients with ASPECTS 0-4, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was seen in ten (19%) of 52 patients in the EVT group versus three (5%) of 66 patients in the control group (adjusted cOR 3·94, 95% CI 0·94-16·49; pinteraction=0·025), and among patients with more than 33% involvement of middle cerebral artery territory, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was observed in 15 (14%) of 108 patients in the EVT group versus four (4%) of 113 patients in the control group (4·17, 1·30-13·44, pinteraction=0·012). INTERPRETATION: EVT achieves better outcomes at 90 days than standard medical therapy across a broad range of baseline imaging categories, including infarcts affecting more than 33% of middle cerebral artery territory or ASPECTS less than 6, although in these patients the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was higher in the EVT group than the control group. This analysis provides preliminary evidence for potential use of EVT in patients with large infarcts at baseline. FUNDING: Medtronic.
Authors: James E Siegler; Steven R Messé; Heidi Sucharew; Scott E Kasner; Tapan Mehta; Niraj Arora; Amy K Starosciak; Felipe De Los Rios La Rosa; Natasha R Barnhill; Akshitkumar M Mistry; Kishan Patel; Salman Assad; Amjad Tarboosh; Katarina Dakay; Jeff Wagner; Alicia Bennett; Bharathi Jagadeesan; Christopher Streib; Stewart A Weber; Rohan Chitale; John J Volpi; Stephan A Mayer; Shadi Yaghi; Mahesh V Jayaraman; Pooja Khatri; Eva A Mistry Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: E A Mistry; A M Mistry; T Mehta; N Arora; A K Starosciak; F D L R La Rosa; J E Siegler; S E Kasner; R Chitale; M Fusco; M Froehler; S Yaghi; M Schrag; P Khatri Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Mohammed A Almekhlafi; Christoph Cognard; Ryan McTaggart; Kristine Blackham; Alessandra Biondi; Aad van der Lugt; Charles B L M Majoie; Wim H van Zwam; H Bart van der Worp; Michael D Hill Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: V Yogendrakumar; F Al-Ajlan; M Najm; J Puig; A Calleja; S-I Sohn; S H Ahn; R Mikulik; N Asdaghi; T S Field; A Jin; T Asil; J-M Boulanger; M D Hill; A M Demchuk; B K Menon; D Dowlatshahi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: James E Siegler; Steven R Messé; Heidi Sucharew; Scott E Kasner; Tapan Mehta; Niraj Arora; Amy K Starosciak; Felipe De Los Rios La Rosa; Natasha R Barnhill; Akshitkumar M Mistry; Kishan Patel; Salman Assad; Amjad Tarboosh; Katarina Dakay; Sanjana Salwi; Jeff Wagner; Alicia Bennett; Bharathi D Jagadeesan; Christopher Streib; Stewart A Weber; Rohan Chitale; John J Volpi; Stephan A Mayer; Shadi Yaghi; Mahesh Jayaraman; Pooja Khatri; Eva A Mistry Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.654