Mismatch Vs No Mismatch in Large Core-A Matter of Definition.

BACKGROUND

Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has shown promise in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for large ischemic core stroke patients, yet variability in core definition and onset-to-imaging time creates heterogeneity in outcomes. This study aims to clarify the prevalence and implications of core-perfusion mismatch (MM) versus no mismatch (No MM) in such patients, utilizing established imaging criteria.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted including patients from 7/29/2019 to 1/29/2023, with data extracted from a continuously maintained database. Patients were eligible if they met criteria including multimodal CT imaging performed within 24 h from last known well (LKW), AIS-LVO diagnosis, and ischemic core size defined by specific rCBF thresholds. Mismatch was assessed based on different operational definitions from the EXTEND and DEFUSE 3 trials.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included, with various time windows from LKW. Using EXTEND criteria, a significant portion of early window patients exhibited MM; however, fewer patients met MM criteria in the late window. Defining MM using DEFUSE 3 criteria yielded similar patterns, but with overall lower MM prevalence in the late window. When employing rCBF <38% as a surrogate for ischemic core, a higher percentage of patients were classified as MM across both time windows compared to rCBF <30%.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of MM in large ischemic core patients varies significantly depending on the imaging criteria and time from LKW. Notably, MM was more prevalent in the early time window across all criteria used. Additional RCTs are needed to determine if this definition of MM identifies patients who will benefit most from EVT.