Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score, Infarct Core Volume, and Endovascular Therapy Outcomes in Patients With Large Infarct: A Secondary Analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT Trial.

Importance: Endovascular therapy (EVT) demonstrated better outcomes compared with medical management in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients with large infarct. Objective: To compare outcomes of EVT vs medical management across different strata of the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) and infarct core volume in patients with large infarct. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of subgroups of the Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) RCT included patients from 46 stroke centers across China between October 2, 2020, and May 18, 2022. Participants were enrolled within 24 hours of symptom onset and had ASPECTS of 3 to 5 or 0 to 2 and infarct core volume of 70 to 100 mL. Patients were divided into 3 groups: ASPECTS of 3 to 5 with infarct core volume less than 70 mL, ASPECTS of 3 to 5 with infarct core volume of 70 mL or greater, and ASPECTS of 0 to 2. Interventions: Endovascular therapy or medical management. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the ordinal 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Results: There were 455 patients in the trial; median age was 68 years (IQR, 60-73 years), and 279 (61.3%) were male. The treatment effect did not vary significantly across the 3 baseline imaging subgroups (P = .95 for interaction). The generalized odds ratio for the shift in the 90-day mRS distribution toward better outcomes with EVT vs medical management was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.06-1.85; P = .01) in patients with ASPECTS of 3 to 5 and infarct core volume less than 70 mL, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.81-1.83; P = .23) in patients with ASPECTS of 3 to 5 and infarct core volume of 70 mL or greater, and 1.59 (95% CI, 0.89-2.86; P = .09) in patients with ASPECTS of 0 to 2. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, no significant interaction was found between baseline imaging status and the benefit of EVT compared with medical management in patients with large infarct core volume. However, estimates within subgroups were underpowered. A pooled analysis of large core trials stratified by ASPECTS and infarct core volume strata is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04551664.

Unsuccessful Recanalization versus Medical Management of Patients with Large Ischemic Core : Analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The outcomes of patients with large ischemic core who fail to recanalize with endovascular therapy (EVT) compared to medical management (MM) are uncertain. The objective was to evaluate the clinical and safety outcomes of patients who underwent EVT in patients with large ischemic core and unsuccessful recanalization. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT randomized trial. Unsuccessful recanalization was defined as patients who underwent EVT with eTICI 0-2a. The primary endpoint was 90-day very poor outcome (mRS 5-6). Multivariable logistic regression was conducted controlling for ASPECTS, occlusion location, intravenous thrombolysis, and time to treatment. RESULTS: Of 455 patients 225 were treated with MM. Of 230 treated with EVT, 43 (19%) patients had unsuccessful recanalization. There was no difference in 90-day very poor outcomes (39.5% vs. 40%, aOR 0.93, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.47-1.85, p = 0.95), sICH (7.0% vs. 2.7%, aOR 2.81, 95% CI 0.6-13.29, p = 0.19), or mortality (30% vs. 20%, aOR 1.65, 95% CI 0.89-3.06, p = 0.11) between the unsuccessful EVT and MM groups, respectively. There were higher rates of ICH (55.8% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001), infarct core volume growth (142.7 ml vs. 90.5 ml, ß = 47.77, 95% CI 20.97-74.57 ml, p < 0.001), and decompressive craniectomy (18.6% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) in the unsuccessful EVT versus MM groups. CONCLUSION: In a randomized trial of patients with large ischemic core undergoing EVT with unsuccessful recanalization, there was no difference in very poor outcomes, sICH or death versus medically managed patients. In the unsuccessful EVT group, there were higher rates of any ICH, volume of infarct core growth, and decompressive craniectomy.

Time to Endovascular Reperfusion and Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke : A Nationwide Prospective Registry in China.

PURPOSE: The benefit of endovascular reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke is highly time-dependent but the relation of delays in workflow with outcomes and the key determinants of delays remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the association between faster endovascular therapy and outcomes in a Chinese population with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Patients treated with endovascular therapy within 7 h due to anterior large vessel occlusion were enrolled in the ANGEL-ACT registry. Time intervals from hospital arrival to arterial puncture (door-to-puncture), hospital arrival to reperfusion (door-to-reperfusion) and puncture-to-reperfusion were recorded. The outcomes included modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores 0-1, 0-2, mortality at 3 months, substantial reperfusion, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). RESULTS: Of 932 patients receiving endovascular therapy (mean age 65.1 years, 60.1% male), the median door-to-puncture, door-to-reperfusion, and puncture-to-perfusion times were 110min (interquartile range, IQR 72-155min), 200min (IQR, 149-260min), and 76min (IQR, 50-118min). Of the patients 87.4% achieved substantial reperfusion and 9.6% had sICH. The mRS 0-1, 0-2, and mortality at 3 months were 39.8%, 43.2%, and 16.4%. Faster door-to-reperfusion and puncture-to-reperfusion were associated with higher likelihood of mRS 0-1, mRS 0-2, and lower rate of sICH. There was a trend of improved mRS, lower mortality, and fewer ICH with shorter door-to-puncture time; however, most differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke in routine clinical practice, shorter time to reperfusion was associated with better outcome after endovascular therapy. Standardized workflows and training in endovascular treatment techniques should be promoted nationally to reduce in-hospital delays.