Optimal blood pressure (BP) management during acute endovascular treatment (EVT) for
acute ischemic stroke is not well established. Current international guidelines
recommend maintaining the systolic blood pressure (SBP) under 180–185 mmHg and over
140 mmHg, as well as avoiding excessive BP drops during thrombectomy with low to
moderate level of evidence.[1-4] Extreme hypo- as well as
hypertensive blood pressures during an acute ischemic stroke may have a harmful
influence with a U-shaped relationship between blood pressure and functional
outcome.[5-14]Substantial decreases of BP during the endovascular procedure are associated with
worse functional outcome as a decrease in systemic blood pressure might lead to to
larger final infarction sizes.[15-18]The Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care Expert recommend
maintaining SBP >140 mmHg with moderate level of evidence during EVT, based on
retrospective data.
However, one study suggested that intraprocedural SBP between 100–140 mmHg
was not resulting in different functional outcomes and only values <100 mmHg had
fewer patients with good functional outcome.
Additionally, a post-hoc analysis of the EVT trial (MR
CLEAN) showed that 16.2% patients had an SBP of <120 mmHg on presentation and
there was no significantly different functional outcome than those who had an SBP >120 mmHg.Current guidelines suggest, that in patients who are eligible for IV thrombolytic and
endovascular therapy, BP should be lowered to <185/110 mmHg before treatment and
to <180/105 mmHg after treatment with low to moderate evidence.
However, in patients with a BP of <220/110 mmHg who did not receive
reperfusion therapy (i.e. IV fibrinolytic therapy and/or endovascular thrombectomy)
initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive medication is not effective to prevent
death or dependency with level A evidence.In summary, there is evidence for association of worse functional outcome for
extremes of blood pressure levels at presentation. For intraprocedural
intra-individual blood pressure variation the evidence is largely limited for blood
pressure drops, while some evidence[14,21] also showed negative effects
of prolonged high blood pressures. As there are considerable inter-individual
differences of necessary systemic blood pressure levels to maintain a sufficient
penumbral perfusion, managing blood pressure via absolute targets independent of the
individual needs might be a suboptimal approach. Lower BP than necessary might lead
to reduced penumbral hypoperfusion and thus larger infarction, higher values might
be associated with adverse effects like edema and hemorrhage. The admission blood
pressure might represent the lowest necessary compensatory blood pressure to
maintain penumbral perfusion. Thus, it could be reasonable to maintain
intraprocedural systolic blood pressure before reperfusion at the presentation
level, if higher and lower bounds for extreme values are established.
Methods
Design
INDIVIDUATE (NCT04578288) is an exploratory single-center, prospective,
parallel-group, open-labeled randomized controlled trial with blinded endpoint
evaluation (PROBE). We plan to enroll 250 patients in two years. Stroke patients
with vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation undergoing endovascular
treatment are eligible, if they have an National Institute of Health Stroke
Scale (NIHSS) ≥8 and are stable enough for procedural sedation. The exclusion
criteria hemodynamic instability comprise e.g. need for continuous bolus of high
doses of vasopressors or arrhythmias with severe blood pressure instability
before endovascular treatment, which would compromise patient safety. Exclusion
of these patients will ultimately be at the discretion of the treating
physician.Patient consent is obtained before randomization if they are capable of giving
informed consent. If they are incapacitated, their legal representative is
consulted. If neither is possible, a deferred consent will be obtained after the
procedure within 72 h. Data will be retained, if they die during that time frame
or there is a decision for transition to palliative care and
withdrawal/withholding of further therapies. The intervention is maintaining the
intraprocedural SBP at presentation level, the comparator is maintaining
intraprocedural SBP between 140–180 mmHg. Patients are randomized 1:1. The
primary endpoint modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months will be obtained via
telephone interview in a blinded fashion. Secondary outcomes will be recorded
during the hospital stay.The study was approved by the local institutional review board (Ethikkommission
Medizinische Fakultät Heidelberg, ID S-511/2020).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria
Participants have to meet all of the following criteria to be considered for
inclusion in the trial:Decision for thrombectomy according to local protocol for acute
recanalizing stroke treatmentAge 18 years or older, either sexNational Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥8Acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation with isolated
or combined occlusion of: Internal carotid artery (ICA) and/or
middle cerebral artery (MCA)Informed consent by the patient him-/herself or his/her legal
representative obtainable within 72 h of treatment
Exclusion criteria
Subjects presenting with any of the following criteria will not be included
in the trial:Intracerebral hemorrhageComa on admission (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8)Severe respiratory instability, loss of airway protective
reflexes or vomiting on admission, where primary intubation and
general anesthesia is deemed necessaryIntubated state before randomizationSevere hemodynamic instability (e.g. due to decompensated heart
insufficiency)
Randomization
To achieve comparable intervention groups, patients will be allocated in a
concealed fashion in a 1:1 ratio by means of randomization using concealed
envelopes, which are used in a sequential order. The blocked randomization list
will be created using the service of Sealed Envelope™.
Treatment or intervention
The comparator standard blood pressure management is maintenance of
intraprocedural pre-recanalization SBP between 140–180 mmHg for all patients who
receive endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke in anterior
circulation. The intraprocedural pre-recanalization time frame begins with the
groin puncture and the last thrombectomy attempt leading to the final
reperfusion result.The study intervention would be maintaining the intraprocedural
pre-recanalization blood pressure in individualized SBP target ranges depending
on the systolic blood pressure of the patient on presentation (=baseline SBP or
bSBP). The presentation SBP is defined as the first measured value in the
emergency room or in the angiography suite, depending on where the first BP is
measured. The individual target range is defined as: bSBP ± 10 mmHg. The lowest
possible SBP target range is 100–120 mmHg. The highest SBP target range is
determined on the basis of whether patients receive concurrent IV fibrinolytic
therapy or not. In patients where IV fibrinolytic therapy is applied, the
highest SBP target range is 160–180 mmHg, in patients without concurrent
fibrinolytic therapy the highest SBP target range is 180–200 mmHg (see Figure 1). Augmenting the
blood pressure will be achieved with crystalloid fluid infusion and additionally
via norepinephrine with a perfusor therapy. The main specific antihypertensive
drug will be urapidil via bolus and/or continuous infusion.
Figure 1.
Schema of standard vs. individualized blood pressure management. BP:
baseline blood pressure; SBP: systolic blood pressure; bSBP: baseline
systolic blood pressure; rtPA: recombinant tissue plasminogen
activator.
Schema of standard vs. individualized blood pressure management. BP:
baseline blood pressure; SBP: systolic blood pressure; bSBP: baseline
systolic blood pressure; rtPA: recombinant tissue plasminogen
activator.In the setting where emergent endotracheal intubation is deemed necessary after
study inclusion, aforementioned respective blood pressure targets are maintained
for each treatment arm during general anesthesia.
Primary outcomes
In patients who receive endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke in
anterior circulation (according to inclusion and exclusion criteria), the
primary objective is the difference in rates of favorable functional outcome 90
days after stroke onset [measured by modified Rankin scale (mRS) assessed 90
days ±2 weeks after onset, dichotomized 0–2 (favorable outcome) to 3–6
(unfavorable outcome)] between individual BP management compared with standard
BP management, regardless of treatment discontinuation. Modified RS is assessed
by telephone interview and by a rater blinded to the treatment arm.
Secondary outcomes
Early neurological improvement indicated by change of NIHSS 24 hours
after admission [NIHSS on admission – NIHSS after 24 h], after 72 h
[NIHSS on admission – NIHSS after 72 h] and at discharge [NIHSS on
admission – NIHSS at discharge]Infarction size, determined with MRI or CT scan on a
post-interventional follow up scan 12–36h after EVT [mL]Time of intraprocedural SBP in target range [percentage of time in
target range between groin puncture and reperfusion]Time of intraprocedural SBP spent in target range ± 10 mmHg
[percentage of time in range between groin puncture and
reperfusion]Systemic physiology monitor parameters: means, minimal, maximal
values of SBP (mmHg), DBP (mmHg), Blood pressure variability, HR
(/min), SaO2 (%), etCO2 (mmHg)Degree of recanalization [modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral
Infarction Scale (mTICI)]Number of EVT attemptsTimesDoor-to-groin puncture time [time from admission to groin
puncture, min]Door-to-recanalization time [time from groin puncture to
the last thrombectomy attempt leading to the final
reperfusion result, min]Duration of EVT [from groin puncture to last thrombectomy
attempt leading to the final reperfusion result,
min]Length of stay in hospital [days from admission to
discharge]Safety endpointse. Critical hyper- or hypotension (SBP >210 mmHg in
the population without fibrinolytic therapy and SBP
>190 mmHg with fibrinolytic therapy or <90 mmHg)
[yes/no],f. Post-interventional (symptomatic) intracerebral
hemorrhage (using the Heidelberg Bleeding
Classification) [yes/no]g. Intrahospital mortality [yes/no, cause of death]h. Mortality 3 months after onset [yes/no, cause of
death]
Data monitoring board
There is no external Data Monitoring Board and data validation aspects (control
of completeness, consistency and plausibility of data) is at the responsibility
of the principal investigators (S. Schönenberger and M. Chen). The PI will have
access to the final trial dataset. Data management, validation, supervising
procedures will be performed by the PI according to SOPs, to ICH-GCP guidelines
and the declaration of Helsinki in their recent versions.
Sample size
A sample size of 250 patients will be used for analysis which will be randomized
with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to intervention and control group (125 per
group). Since this is an exploratory study and there is no information about a
potential treatment effect available, a formal sample size calculation based on
a confirmatory hypothesis testing approach is not feasible. Instead, we base the
sample size on the degree of evidence that can be achieved in this trial in
terms of the width of the 95% confidence interval for the favourable outcome
rate difference between the two groups and the feasibility of recruitment where
we estimate to achieve the numbers of patients in two years. Assuming a
proportion of 0.3 patients resulting in favorable outcomes in the control group
and using the additional assumption of 125 patients per group, the maximal 95%
confidence interval (Wilson Score Interval) width for the difference in
proportions (between intervention and control group) will be 0.235. The
calculation was done using PASS version 16.0.3.
Statistical analyses
All endpoints and baseline variables are descriptively summarized using mean and
standard deviation, as well as median, interquartile range, minimum and maximum
for continuous variables, and absolute and relative frequencies for categorical
variables.Missing values are documented per variable as absolute frequencies.The primary endpoint mRS after 3 months (dichotomized 0–2 versus 3–6) will be
evaluated using a logistic regression model including group, premorbid mRS, and
NIHSS at baseline as covariates. Odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95%
confidence intervals, as well as p-values will be reported. The full analysis
set (FAS), which is used as primary analysis set, is based on the
intention-to-treat principle and including all randomized patients fulfils these
requirements. Additionally, the primary outcome will be further evaluated based
on the per protocol set. Multiple imputation via predictive mean matching,
will be used to deal with missing mRS values. Sensitivity analyses will
be performed by applying alternative methods dealing with missing data such as,
e.g. complete case analysis and replacement by ICA-r (independent component analysis).
Furthermore, multivariable ordinal and binary logistic regression models
with elastic net penalty for mRS after 3 months will be performed to identify
clinical variables influencing the outcome, if applicable. Secondary outcomes
will be evaluated by applying linear or (binary/ordinal) logistic regression
methods as appropriate and adjustment will be done according to the primary
outcome model. For safety analysis patients are analyzed as-treated. Safety
analysis will include the rates of complications (e.g. death, intracerebral
hemorrhage) which will be calculated and compared by using a Boschloo’s test
which will be based on all randomized patients who were treated with the
interventions under investigation.Exploratory analyses will be performed to identify subgroups and potential
moderator variables of patients profiting distinctly from the individual BP
management. This will be done by binary logistic regression models including
interaction terms between intervention and baseline BP, age, NIHSS, vessel
occlusion, pre-morbid mRS, ASPECTS, reperfusion status (mTICI), and thrombolytic
therapy respectively.Additionally, the following subgroups will descriptively be analyzed and compared
for the primary endpoint:NIHSS at admission (8–15, 15–20, >20)BP strata (SBP targets 100–140 mmHg, 140–160 mmHg, 160–200 mmHg)Age (<50 y, 50–70 y, >70 y)SexPre-morbid mRS (0–2, 3–6)ASPECTS (<4, 5–7, 8–10)mTICI (0–2a, 2b–3)Intravenous thrombolytic therapy (yes or no)Emergent intubation (yes or no)Localization of occlusion (ICA, M1, M2, ICA + M1/M2, other)Time since last-seen-well (<12 h and >12 h until admission)Collateral status (Tan scale: 0–1, 2–3)Since this is an exploratory data analysis all p-values are of descriptive nature
for which there is no accounting for multiplicity. Furthermore, statistical
methods are used to assess the quality of data and the homogeneity of
intervention groups. Further details of the analysis will be included in the
statistical analysis plan (SAP) which will be finalized before data base
closure. Statistical analysis will be performed using R version 4.0.2 (or
higher).
Study organization and funding
There is no external steering committee for this single-center trial. The PI are
responsible for development of the trial protocol, approval of the trial
protocol by legal authorities and ethics committees, design of consent forms and
obtaining informed consent from the patients/their legal representatives, design
of the CRF, organization of a randomization system, any decisions on changes,
amendments, communication with the local ethics committee or interruption of the
trial. They also supervise the trial conduction. There is no external funding
for this trial.
Discussion
The available evidence and pathophysiological considerations argue for an individual
approach to manage intraprocedural blood pressure during endovascular stroke
treatment. To our knowledge there is one comparable ongoing RCT at the moment: Maier
et al. plan to investigate an individualized BP management approach, where the study
intervention will be to maintain intraprocedural MAP within ±10% from the first
measured value in the angiography suite in a multicenter setting (NCT04352296) in
France. Their control is maintaining SBP between 140–180 mmHg.Because we do not have information about effect sizes due to our novel approach,
defining an adequate sample size to confirm superiority is not possible. Thus, our
study will be exploratory with the aim to obtain effect sizes, confidence intervals
and investigate the feasibility to pursue such highly individualized approach. With
this study, we hope to generate data for future confirmatory multicenter trials.We decide to only include moderately to severely afflicted stroke patients (i.e.
NIHSS ≥ 8) as there is evidence that BP drops have a larger effect on functional
outcome in more severely afflicted patients.We are aware that the target range for the individualized strategy is very narrow and
time of BP spent in treatment range will likely not cover the entire endovascular
procedure. However, due to lower intervention thresholds to start antihypertensive
or vasopressor therapy the subsequent higher impetus of earlier countermeasures for
blood pressure outliers might be a sufficient measure to lead to relevant changes in
outcome.Furthermore, we choose to investigate our intervention strategy in primary
procedurally sedated (with monitored anesthesia care) patients, because (1) we
follow a primary procedural sedation regimen in our center, (2) we aim to establish
a relatively homogeneous study cohort in terms of anesthesia mode and (3) to avoid
any confounding influence of primary general anesthesia. We will still include
patients, which are emergently converted from PS to GA and further sensitivity
analysis will be performed in this subgroup.We expect a small effect on the functional outcome, as our intervention (i.e.
individualized blood pressure manipulation) will be of relatively short duration and
other factors are more impactful on outcome. However, altering BP is a relatively
non-invasive intervention and can be regarded as a neuroprotective measure during
the critical time frame of the hypoperfused state of the ischemic brain. Thus, even
if the number needed to treat to obtain a better functional outcome is high, it
would still constitute a feasible and convenient strategy.Results of INDIVIDUATE will provide further evidence regarding the influence of blood
pressure during EVT and contribute to the understanding and improvement of
peri-interventional stroke management.
Authors: Konark Malhotra; Nitin Goyal; Aristeidis H Katsanos; Angeliki Filippatou; Eva A Mistry; Pooja Khatri; Mohammad Anadani; Alejandro M Spiotta; Else Charlotte Sandset; Amrou Sarraj; Georgios Magoufis; Christos Krogias; Lars Tönges; Apostolos Safouris; Lucas Elijovich; Mayank Goyal; Adam Arthur; Andrei V Alexandrov; Georgios Tsivgoulis Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Christophe Cognard; Mauro Gallitelli; Olav Jansen; Adam Kobayashi; Heinrich P Mattle; Keith W Muir; Mikael Mazighi; Karl Schaller; Peter D Schellinger Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: William J Powers; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Teri Ackerson; Opeolu M Adeoye; Nicholas C Bambakidis; Kyra Becker; José Biller; Michael Brown; Bart M Demaerschalk; Brian Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Chelsea S Kidwell; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Bruce Ovbiagele; Phillip A Scott; Kevin N Sheth; Andrew M Southerland; Deborah V Summers; David L Tirschwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Maxim J H L Mulder; Saliha Ergezen; Hester F Lingsma; Olvert A Berkhemer; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Lucie A van den Berg; Geert Lycklama À Nijeholt; Bart J Emmer; H Bart van der Worp; Paul J Nederkoorn; Yvo B W E M Roos; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Wim H van Zwam; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Pekka O Talke; Deepak Sharma; Eric J Heyer; Sergio D Bergese; Kristine A Blackham; Robert D Stevens Journal: J Neurosurg Anesthesiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.956
Authors: Umeshkumar Athiraman; Ali Sultan-Qurraie; Bala Nair; David L Tirschwell; Basavaraj Ghodke; Adam D Havenon; Danial K Hallam; Louis J Kim; Kyra J Becker; Deepak Sharma Journal: J Neurosurg Anesthesiol Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.956
Authors: D Michalski; C Jungk; T Brenner; C Nusshag; C J Reuß; M O Fiedler; F C F Schmitt; M Bernhard; C Beynon; M A Weigand; M Dietrich Journal: Anaesthesiologie Date: 2022-09-20