BACKGROUND: Optimal management of patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and low NIHSS score is unknown, which was the aim to investigate in this study. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective single tertiary care centre 14-year cohort of patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and NIHSS score ≤ 5 on admission. Outcome was analysed according to primary intended therapy. RESULTS: Among 185 patients (median age 67.4 years), 52.4% received primary conservative therapy (including 26.8% secondary reperfusion in case of secondary neurological deterioration), 12.4% IV thrombolysis (IVT) only and 35.1% primary endovascular therapy (EVT). 95 (51.4%) patients experienced neurological deterioration until 3 months. Primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT compared to conservative-therapy patients had better 3 months' outcome (54.5% vs. 30.8%: adjustedOR 6.02; adjustedp = 0.004 for mRS 0-1 and 54.7% vs. 30.8%: adjustedOR 5.09; adjustedp = 0.002, respectively). Also mRS shift analysis favored primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT patients (adjustedOR 6.25; adjustedp = 0.001 and adjustedOR 3.14; adjustedp = 0.003). Outcome in primary-IVT-only vs. primary-EVT patients did not differ significantly. Patients who received secondary EVT because of neurological deterioration after primary-conservative-therapy had worse 3 months' outcome than primary-EVT patients (20.8% vs. 30.8%: adjustedOR 0.24; adjustedp = 0.047 for mRS 0-1 and adjustedOR 0.31; adjustedp = 0.019 in mRS shift analysis). Survival and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage did not differ amongst groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that primary IVT and/or EVT may be better than primary conservative therapy in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and low NIHSS score. Furthermore, primary EVT was better than secondary EVT in case of neurological deterioration. There is an unmet need for RCTs to find the optimal therapy for this patient group.
BACKGROUND: Optimal management of patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and low NIHSS score is unknown, which was the aim to investigate in this study. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective single tertiary care centre 14-year cohort of patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and NIHSS score ≤ 5 on admission. Outcome was analysed according to primary intended therapy. RESULTS: Among 185 patients (median age 67.4 years), 52.4% received primary conservative therapy (including 26.8% secondary reperfusion in case of secondary neurological deterioration), 12.4% IV thrombolysis (IVT) only and 35.1% primary endovascular therapy (EVT). 95 (51.4%) patients experienced neurological deterioration until 3 months. Primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT compared to conservative-therapy patients had better 3 months' outcome (54.5% vs. 30.8%: adjustedOR 6.02; adjustedp = 0.004 for mRS 0-1 and 54.7% vs. 30.8%: adjustedOR 5.09; adjustedp = 0.002, respectively). Also mRS shift analysis favored primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT patients (adjustedOR 6.25; adjustedp = 0.001 and adjustedOR 3.14; adjustedp = 0.003). Outcome in primary-IVT-only vs. primary-EVT patients did not differ significantly. Patients who received secondary EVT because of neurological deterioration after primary-conservative-therapy had worse 3 months' outcome than primary-EVT patients (20.8% vs. 30.8%: adjustedOR 0.24; adjustedp = 0.047 for mRS 0-1 and adjustedOR 0.31; adjustedp = 0.019 in mRS shift analysis). Survival and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage did not differ amongst groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that primary IVT and/or EVT may be better than primary conservative therapy in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and low NIHSS score. Furthermore, primary EVT was better than secondary EVT in case of neurological deterioration. There is an unmet need for RCTs to find the optimal therapy for this patient group.
Entities:
Keywords:
Different therapy modalities; Large vessel occlusion; Low NIHSS score; NIHSS score subitems; Outcome
Authors: M P Messer; S Schönenberger; M A Möhlenbruch; J Pfaff; C Herweh; P A Ringleb; S Nagel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Russell Cerejo; Esteban Cheng-Ching; Ferdinand Hui; M Shazam Hussain; Ken Uchino; Jennifer Bullen; Gabor Toth Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2016-04-03 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Xabier Urra; Luis San Román; Francisco Gil; Mónica Millán; David Cánovas; Jaume Roquer; Pere Cardona; Marc Ribó; Joan Martí-Fàbregas; Sònia Abilleira; Ángel Chamorro Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Mitchell; Andrew M Demchuk; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Maria A de Miquel; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Alain Bonafe; Reza Jahan; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lucie A van den Berg; Elad I Levy; Olvert A Berkhemer; Vitor M Pereira; Jeremy Rempel; Mònica Millán; Stephen M Davis; Daniel Roy; John Thornton; Luis San Román; Marc Ribó; Debbie Beumer; Bruce Stouch; Scott Brown; Bruce C V Campbell; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Karen L Furie; Michael H Lev; Hakan Ay; Aneesh B Singhal; David M Greer; Gordon J Harris; Elkan Halpern; Walter J Koroshetz; Wade S Smith Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mirjam R Heldner; Christoph Zubler; Heinrich P Mattle; Gerhard Schroth; Anja Weck; Marie-Luise Mono; Jan Gralla; Simon Jung; Marwan El-Koussy; Rudolf Lüdi; Xin Yan; Marcel Arnold; Christoph Ozdoba; Pasquale Mordasini; Urs Fischer Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mirjam R Heldner; Caroline Chalfine; Marion Houot; Roza M Umarova; Jan Rosner; Julian Lippert; Laura Gallucci; Anne Leger; Flore Baronnet; Yves Samson; Charlotte Rosso Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.003