Pierre Seners1, Claire Perrin1, Bertrand Lapergue2, Hilde Henon3, Séverine Debiais4, Denis Sablot5, Isabelle Girard Buttaz6, Ruben Tamazyan7, Cécile Preterre8, Nadia Laksiri9, Gioia Mione10, Caroline Arquizan11, Ludovic Lucas12, Jean-Claude Baron1, Guillaume Turc1. 1. Neurology Department, GHU Paris Psychiatrie et Neurosciences, Sainte-Anne Hospital, Université de Paris, FHU NeuroVasc, Institute of Psychiatrie and Neuroscience of Paris (IPNP), INSERM UMR 1266, Paris, France. 2. Neurology Department, Foch University Hospital, Suresnes, France. 3. Department of Neurology, Université de Lille, INSERM UMR 1171, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 4. Neurology Department, Bretonneau Hospital, Tours, France. 5. Neurology Department, Perpignan Hospital, Perpignan, France. 6. Neurology Department, Valenciennes Hospital, Valenciennes, France. 7. Neurology Department, Saint Joseph Hospital, Paris, France. 8. Neurology Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France. 9. Neurology Department, La Timone University Hospital, Marseille, France. 10. Neurology Department, Nancy University Hospital, Nancy, France. 11. Neurology Department, CHRU Gui de Chauliac, Montpellier, France. 12. Stroke Unit, Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether bridging therapy (intravenous thrombolysis [IVT] followed by endovascular treatment) is superior to IVT alone in minor stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO) is unknown. METHODS: Multicentric retrospective observational study including, in intention-to-treat, consecutive IVT-treated minor strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] ≤ 5) with LVO, with or without additional mechanical thrombectomy. Propensity-score (inverse probability of treatment weighting) was used to reduce baseline between-groups differences. The primary outcome was excellent outcome, that is, modified Rankin score 0 to 1 at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 598 patients were included (214 and 384 in the bridging therapy and IVT groups, respectively). Following propensity-score weighting, the distribution of baseline clinical and radiological variables was similar across the two patient groups. Compared with IVT alone, bridging therapy was not associated with excellent outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75-1.24; p = 0.76), but was associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 3.01; 95% CI = 1.77-5.11; p < 0.0001). Occlusion site was a strong modifier of the effect of bridging therapy on outcome (pinteraction < 0.0001), with bridging therapy associated with higher odds of excellent outcome in proximal M1 (OR = 3.26; 95% CI = 1.67-6.35; p = 0.0006) and distal M1 (OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.01-2.82; p = 0.04) occlusions, but with lower odds of excellent outcome for M2 (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.38-0.75; p = 0.0003) occlusions. Bridging therapy was associated with higher rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in M2 occlusions only (OR = 4.40; 95% CI = 2.20-8.83; p < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: Although overall outcomes were similar in intended bridging therapy as compared to intended IVT alone in minor strokes with LVO, our results suggest that intended bridging therapy may be beneficial in M1 occlusions, whereas the benefit-risk profile may favor IVT alone in M2 occlusions. ANN NEUROL 2020 ANN NEUROL 2020;88:160-169.
OBJECTIVE: Whether bridging therapy (intravenous thrombolysis [IVT] followed by endovascular treatment) is superior to IVT alone in minor stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO) is unknown. METHODS: Multicentric retrospective observational study including, in intention-to-treat, consecutive IVT-treated minor strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] ≤ 5) with LVO, with or without additional mechanical thrombectomy. Propensity-score (inverse probability of treatment weighting) was used to reduce baseline between-groups differences. The primary outcome was excellent outcome, that is, modified Rankin score 0 to 1 at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 598 patients were included (214 and 384 in the bridging therapy and IVT groups, respectively). Following propensity-score weighting, the distribution of baseline clinical and radiological variables was similar across the two patient groups. Compared with IVT alone, bridging therapy was not associated with excellent outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75-1.24; p = 0.76), but was associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 3.01; 95% CI = 1.77-5.11; p < 0.0001). Occlusion site was a strong modifier of the effect of bridging therapy on outcome (pinteraction < 0.0001), with bridging therapy associated with higher odds of excellent outcome in proximal M1 (OR = 3.26; 95% CI = 1.67-6.35; p = 0.0006) and distal M1 (OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.01-2.82; p = 0.04) occlusions, but with lower odds of excellent outcome for M2 (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.38-0.75; p = 0.0003) occlusions. Bridging therapy was associated with higher rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in M2 occlusions only (OR = 4.40; 95% CI = 2.20-8.83; p < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: Although overall outcomes were similar in intended bridging therapy as compared to intended IVT alone in minor strokes with LVO, our results suggest that intended bridging therapy may be beneficial in M1 occlusions, whereas the benefit-risk profile may favor IVT alone in M2 occlusions. ANN NEUROL 2020 ANN NEUROL 2020;88:160-169.
Authors: Andrea Maria Alexandre; Iacopo Valente; Alessandro Pedicelli; Angelo Maria Pezzullo; Francesca Colò; Luca Scarcia; Andrea Romi; Mariangela Piano; Antonio Macera; Joseph Domenico Gabrieli; Giacomo Cester; Antonio Armando Caragliano; Sergio Lucio Vinci; Maria Ruggiero; Christian Commodaro; Andrea Saletti; Guido Andrea Lazzarotti; Mirco Cosottini; Valerio Da Ros; Luigi Bellini; Emilio Lozupone; Adriana Paladini; Valerio Brunetti; Roberta Morosetti; Giovanni Frisullo; Paolo Calabresi; Giacomo Della Marca; Aldobrando Broccolini Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.830
Authors: Eivind Berge; William Whiteley; Heinrich Audebert; Gian Marco De Marchis; Ana Catarina Fonseca; Chiara Padiglioni; Natalia Pérez de la Ossa; Daniel Strbian; Georgios Tsivgoulis; Guillaume Turc Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2021-02-19
Authors: Amrou Sarraj; James Grotta; Gregory W Albers; Ameer E Hassan; Spiros Blackburn; Arthur Day; Clark Sitton; Michael Abraham; Chunyan Cai; Mark Dannenbaum; Deep Pujara; William Hicks; Ronald Budzik; Nirav Vora; Ashish Arora; Bader Alenzi; Wondwossen G Tekle; Haris Kamal; Osman Mir; Andrew D Barreto; Maarten Lansberg; Rishi Gupta; Sheryl Martin-Schild; Sean Savitz; Georgios Tsivgoulis Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Aurélien Freiherr von Seckendorff; François Delvoye; Paul Levant; Mialitiana Solo Nomenjanahary; Véronique Ollivier; Marie-Charlotte Bourrienne; Lucas Di Meglio; Michel Piotin; Simon Escalard; Benjamin Maier; Solène Hebert; Stanislas Smajda; Hocine Redjem; Mikael Mazighi; Raphael Blanc; Benoit Ho-Tin-Noé; Jean-Philippe Désilles Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 4.003
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