Department of Neurosurgery, Greenville Health System, Greenville, SC, USA.
Department of Neurosurgery, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Lancet. 2019 Mar 9;393(10175):998-1008. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30297-1.
Stent retriever thrombectomy of large-vessel occlusion results in better outcomes than medical therapy alone. Alternative thrombectomy strategies, particularly a direct aspiration as first pass technique, while promising, have not been rigorously assessed for clinical efficacy in randomised trials. We designed COMPASS to assess whether patients treated with aspiration as first pass have non-inferior functional outcomes to those treated with a stent retriever as first line.
We did a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, core lab adjudicated non-inferiority trial at 15 sites (ten hospitals and four specialty clinics in the USA and one hospital in Canada). Eligible participants were patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke from anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion within 6 h of onset and an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of greater than 6. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) via a central web-based system without stratification to either direct aspiration first pass or stent retriever first line thrombectomy. Those assessing primary outcomes via clinical examinations were masked to group assignment as they were not involved in the procedures. Physicians were allowed to use adjunctive technology as was consistent with their standard of care. The null hypothesis for this study was that patients treated with aspiration as first pass achieve inferior outcomes compared with those treated with a stent retriever first line approach. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of clinical functional outcome at 90 days as measured by the percentage of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2, analysed by intent to treat; non-inferiority was established with a margin of 0·15. All randomly assigned patients were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT02466893.
Between June 1, 2015, and July 5, 2017, we assigned 270 patients to treatment: 134 to aspiration first pass and 136 to stent retriever first line. A modified Rankin score of 0-2 at 90 days was achieved by 69 patients (52%; 95% CI 43·8-60·3) in the aspiration group and 67 patients (50%; 41·6-57·4) in the stent retriever group, showing that aspiration as first pass was non-inferior to stent retriever first line (p=0·0014). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 48 (36%) of 134 in the aspiration first pass group, and 46 (34%) of 135 in the stent retriever first line group. All-cause mortality at 3 months occurred in 30 patients (22%) in both groups.
A direct aspiration as first pass thrombectomy conferred non-inferior functional outcome at 90 days compared with stent retriever first line thrombectomy. This study supports the use of direct aspiration as an alternative to stent retriever as first-line therapy for stroke thrombectomy.
Penumbra.
支架取栓治疗大血管闭塞的效果优于单纯药物治疗。替代取栓策略,特别是直接抽吸作为首选技术,尽管有前景,但在随机试验中尚未严格评估其临床疗效。我们设计了 COMPASS 研究,旨在评估与使用支架取栓作为一线治疗的患者相比,首先使用抽吸作为治疗方法的患者是否具有非劣效的功能结局。
我们在 15 个地点(美国的 10 家医院和 4 家专业诊所以及加拿大的 1 家医院)进行了一项多中心、随机、开放标签、盲法结局、核心实验室裁决的非劣效性试验。符合条件的参与者为发病 6 小时内出现前循环大血管闭塞且 Alberta 卒中项目早期 CT 评分大于 6 的急性缺血性卒中患者。我们通过中央网络系统以 1:1 的比例随机分配参与者,不进行分层,分别接受直接抽吸作为首选技术或支架取栓作为一线血栓切除术。通过临床检查评估主要结局的参与者对分组情况进行了盲法,因为他们不参与手术。医生可以使用辅助技术,只要符合他们的标准护理。本研究的零假设是,与接受支架取栓一线治疗的患者相比,首先接受抽吸治疗的患者预后较差。主要结局为 90 天时采用改良 Rankin 量表评分(0-2 分)衡量的临床功能结局的非劣效性,采用意向治疗进行分析;非劣效性以 0.15 的差值为界。所有随机分配的患者均纳入安全性分析。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号:NCT02466893。
2015 年 6 月 1 日至 2017 年 7 月 5 日,我们将 270 名患者分配至治疗组:134 名接受抽吸治疗,136 名接受支架取栓治疗。抽吸组有 69 名患者(52%;95%CI 43.8-60.3)在 90 天时达到改良 Rankin 评分 0-2 分,支架取栓组有 67 名患者(50%;41.6-57.4)达到改良 Rankin 评分 0-2 分,表明抽吸作为首选技术与支架取栓一线治疗相比非劣效(p=0.0014)。抽吸组颅内出血发生在 134 名患者中的 48 名(36%),支架取栓组发生在 135 名患者中的 46 名(34%)。两组均有 30 名患者(22%)在 3 个月时死亡。
直接抽吸作为首选技术与支架取栓一线治疗相比,在 90 天时具有非劣效的功能结局。本研究支持直接抽吸作为支架取栓的替代治疗方法作为卒中取栓的一线治疗。
Penumbra。