Nogueira Raul G, Kimura Kazumi, Matsumaru Yuji, Suzuki Kentaro, Qiu Zhongming, Zi Wenjie, Moran Timothy P, Li Fengli, Sang Hongfei, Luo Weidong, Liu Shuai, Yuan Junjie, Song Jiaxing, Huang Jiacheng, Takeuchi Masataka, Morimoto Masafumi, Otsuka Toshiaki, Yang Qingwu
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Department of Neurology, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2024 Mar 14;16(4):359-364. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2023-020307.
To evaluate the non-inferiority of endovascular treatment (EVT) alone versus intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) followed by EVT and to assess its heterogeneity across prespecified subgroups.
We pooled data from two trials (SKIP in Japan; DEVT in China). Individual patient data were pooled to assess outcomes and heterogeneity of treatment effect. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at 90 days. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day mortality.
We included 438 patients (217 EVT alone; 221 combined IVT+EVT). The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of EVT alone over combined IVT+EVT in achieving 90-day functional independence (56.7% vs 51.6%; adjusted common odds ratio (cOR)=1.27, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.92, p=0.06). Effect sizes favoring EVT alone were present with stroke onset to puncture time longer than 180 min (cOR=2.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.38, p=0.02) and intracranial internal carotid artery ICA occlusions (for ICA cOR=3.04, 95% CI 1.10 to 8.43, p=0.08). The rates of sICH (6.5% vs 9.0%; cOR=0.77, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.61) and 90-day mortality (12.9% vs 13.6%; cOR=1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.89) were comparable.
The cumulative data of these two recent Asian trials failed to unequivocally demonstrate the non-inferiority of EVT alone over combined IVT+EVT. However, our study suggests a potential role for more individualized decision-making. Specifically, Asian patients with stroke onset to EVT longer than 180 min, as well as those with intracranial ICA occlusions and those with atrial fibrillation might have better outcomes with EVT alone than with combined IVT+EVT.
评估单纯血管内治疗(EVT)与静脉溶栓(IVT)后行EVT相比的非劣效性,并评估其在预先指定亚组中的异质性。
我们汇总了两项试验(日本的SKIP;中国的DEVT)的数据。汇总个体患者数据以评估治疗效果的结局和异质性。主要结局是90天时的功能独立性(改良Rankin量表评分0 - 2)。安全性结局包括症状性颅内出血(sICH)和90天死亡率。
我们纳入了438例患者(217例单纯EVT;221例IVT + EVT联合治疗)。荟萃分析未能证明单纯EVT在实现90天功能独立性方面优于IVT + EVT联合治疗(56.7%对51.6%;调整后的共同优势比(cOR)=1.27,95%CI 0.84至1.92,p = 0.06)。在卒中发作至穿刺时间超过180分钟(cOR = 2.28,95%CI 1.18至4.38,p = 0.02)以及颅内颈内动脉(ICA)闭塞(ICA的cOR = 3.04,95%CI 1.10至8.43,p = 0.08)的情况下,显示出有利于单纯EVT的效应量。sICH发生率(6.5%对9.0%;cOR = 0.77,95%CI 0.37至1.61)和90天死亡率(12.9%对13.6%;cOR = 1.05,95%CI 0.58至1.89)相当。
这两项近期亚洲试验的累积数据未能明确证明单纯EVT优于IVT + EVT联合治疗。然而,我们的研究表明在更个体化决策方面有潜在作用。具体而言,卒中发作至EVT时间超过180分钟的亚洲患者,以及颅内ICA闭塞患者和房颤患者,单纯EVT可能比IVT + EVT联合治疗有更好的结局。