Department of Neurology (L.A.R., N.E.L., Y.B.W.E.M.R., J.M.C.).
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (K.M.T., M.K., A.A.E.B.' C.B.L.M.M., B.J.E.), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, the Netherlands.
Stroke. 2022 Nov;53(11):3278-3288. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.038390. Epub 2022 Jul 25.
We aimed to assess whether the effect of intravenous alteplase treatment (IVT) before endovascular treatment (EVT) on outcome is modified by first-line technique during EVT in IVT eligible patients.
This was a post hoc analysis from MR CLEAN-NO IV (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands - Intravenous Treatment Followed by Intra-Arterial Treatment Versus Direct Intra-Arterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke Caused by a Proximal Intracranial Occlusion), a randomized trial of IVT followed by EVT versus EVT alone in patients presenting directly to EVT-capable centers. We included data from all patients who underwent EVT with a thrombectomy attempt. We compared patients treated with stent retriever (with or without aspiration) to aspiration alone as first-line EVT technique and assessed the interaction of first-line EVT technique with IVT treatment. Primary outcome was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale score, analyzed with mixed model ordinal regression for a shift towards better outcome. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion (extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b-3).
Of 473 included patients, 102 (21.6%) were treated with aspiration alone as first-line technique. In the full population, functional outcome was similar for patients treated with stent retriever versus aspiration only (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR]' 1.07 [95% CI, 0.69-1.66]). We observed a significant interaction between IVT and first-line EVT technique (=0.03). In the aspiration-only group, patients treated with EVT alone had worse functional outcome compared to those treated with IVT and EVT (acOR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21-0.90]). In the stent retriever group, functional outcome did not differ between patients treated with or without IVT (acOR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.74-1.57]). There was no statistically significant interaction for successful reperfusion.
In MR CLEAN-NO IV, the treatment effect of IVT was modified by first-line EVT technique. Patients treated with aspiration only as first-line technique had worse clinical outcomes if they did not receive IVT. No such difference was observed in patients treated with stent retrievers. Confirmation by pooling with results from other trials is needed to confirm these findings.
我们旨在评估在适合静脉内溶栓(IVT)的患者中,血管内治疗(EVT)前 IVT 的效果是否因 EVT 中的一线技术而改变。
这是 MR CLEAN-NO IV(荷兰多中心随机临床试验-急性缺血性卒中的血管内治疗-直接动脉内治疗与 IVT 后动脉内治疗比较,由近端颅内闭塞引起的急性缺血性卒中)的事后分析,这是一项比较直接进入 EVT 能力中心的患者接受 IVT 后行 EVT 与单独 EVT 的 IVT 后行 EVT 与单独 EVT 的随机试验。我们纳入了所有接受机械血栓切除术尝试的 EVT 患者的数据。我们比较了作为一线 EVT 技术的支架取栓(联合或不联合抽吸)与单纯抽吸,并评估了一线 EVT 技术与 IVT 治疗的相互作用。主要结局是 90 天改良 Rankin 量表评分,采用混合模型有序回归分析以改善结局。次要结局包括成功再灌注(扩展脑梗死溶栓评分 2b-3)。
在纳入的 473 例患者中,102 例(21.6%)作为一线技术接受单纯抽吸治疗。在全人群中,支架取栓与单纯抽吸治疗患者的功能结局相似(校正后的常见比值比[acOR]'1.07[95%CI,0.69-1.66])。我们观察到 IVT 和一线 EVT 技术之间存在显著的相互作用(=0.03)。在单纯抽吸组中,与单独接受 EVT 治疗的患者相比,单独接受 IVT 治疗的患者功能结局更差(acOR,0.44[95%CI,0.21-0.90])。在支架取栓组中,接受或不接受 IVT 治疗的患者之间功能结局无差异(acOR,1.08[95%CI,0.74-1.57])。再灌注成功无统计学显著交互作用。
在 MR CLEAN-NO IV 中,IVT 的治疗效果受一线 EVT 技术的影响。作为一线技术仅接受抽吸治疗的患者如果未接受 IVT,则临床结局更差。在接受支架取栓的患者中未观察到这种差异。需要通过与其他试验的结果进行汇总来证实这些发现。