Infarcts in a New Territory: Insights From the ESCAPE-NA1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Infarct in a new territory (INT) is a known complication of endovascular stroke therapy. We assessed the incidence of INT, outcomes after INT, and the impact of concurrent treatments with intravenous thrombolysis and nerinetide. METHODS: Data are from ESCAPE-NA1 trial (Safety and Efficacy of Nerinetide [NA-1] in Subjects Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy for Stroke), a multicenter, international randomized study that assessed the efficacy of intravenous nerinetide in subjects with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular thrombectomy within 12 hours from onset. Concurrent treatment and outcomes were collected as part of the trial protocol. INTs were identified on core lab imaging review of follow-up brain imaging and defined by the presence of infarct in a new vascular territory, outside the baseline target occlusion(s) on follow-up brain imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging). INTs were classified by maximum diameter (<2, 2-20, and >20 mm), number, and location. The association between INT and clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale and death) was assessed using standard descriptive techniques and adjusted estimates of effect were derived from Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Among 1092 patients, 103 had INT (9.3%, median age 69.5 years, 49.5% females). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between those with versus without INT. Most INTs (91/103, 88.3%) were not associated with visible occlusions on angiography and 39 out of 103 (37.8%) were >20 mm in maximal diameter. The most common INT territory was the anterior cerebral artery (27.8%). Almost half of the INTs were multiple (46 subjects, 43.5%, range, 2-12). INT was associated with poorer outcomes as compared to no INT on the primary outcome of modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 at 90 days (adjusted risk ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57-0.89]). Infarct volume in those with INT was greater by a median of 21 cc compared with those without, and there was a greater risk of death as compared to patients with no INT (adjusted risk ratio, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.48-3.13]). CONCLUSIONS: Infarcts in a new territory are common in individuals undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke and are associated with poorer outcomes. Optimal therapeutic approaches, including technical strategies, to reduce INT represent a new target for incremental quality improvement of endovascular thrombectomy. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02930018.

Temporal Trends of Functional Outcome in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated With Intravenous Thrombolysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis improves functional outcome in patients with acute stroke and frequencies of r-tPA (recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator) treatment have been increasing over time. We aimed to assess whether functional outcome in r-tPA-treated patients improved over time and to investigate the influence of clinical variables on functional outcome. METHODS: We analyzed data of r-tPA-treated patients in the Austrian Stroke Unit Registry from 2006 to 2019. Favorable functional outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2. Frequencies of modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 were assessed for the overall population and in prespecified subgroups; multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess associations of baseline characteristics including clinically relevant interactions, and outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 4865 out of 9409 r-tPA-treated patients (51.7%) achieved favorable functional outcome 3 months post stroke. Between 2006 and 2019, frequencies of favorable functional outcome increased from 45.9% to 56.8%. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, year of treatment (adjusted odds ratio [adjOR], 1.08 [95% CI, 1.01-1.15]) was associated with favorable functional outcome. Stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, adjOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.87]), age (61-70 years: adjOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.80], 71-80 years: adjOR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.35-0.50], >80 years: adjOR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.13-0.20]), female sex (adjOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.79-0.99]), and various comorbidities (eg, atrial fibrillation, prior stroke, diabetes) were negatively associated. Inclusion of interaction terms into the multivariable logistic regression model suggests a positive effect of year of treatment and endovascular treatment by increasing stroke severity on functional outcome (interaction between year of treatment and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: adjOR, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00-1.02], interaction between National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and endovascular treatment: adjOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]). CONCLUSIONS: Frequencies of favorable functional outcome in r-tPA-treated patients have been increasing over time, likely driven by improved outcome in patients with more severe strokes receiving endovascular treatment. However, some subgroups are still less likely to achieve functional independency and deserve particular attention.

IV Thrombolysis vs Early Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Mild Noncardioembolic Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: It is unclear whether IV thrombolysis (IVT) outperforms early dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the acute setting of mild ischemic stroke. The aim of this study was to compare the early safety and efficacy of IVT with that of DAPT. METHODS: Data of mild noncardioembolic stroke patients with admission NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≤3 who received IVT or early DAPT in the period 2018-2021 were extracted from a nationwide, prospective stroke unit registry. Study endpoints included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), early neurologic deterioration ≥4 NIHSS points (END), and 3-month functional outcome by modified Rankin scale (mRS). RESULTS: A total of 1,195 mild stroke patients treated with IVT and 2,625 patients treated with DAPT were included. IVT patients were younger (68.1 vs 70.8 years), had less hypertension (72.8% vs 83.5%), diabetes (19% vs 28.8%), and a history of myocardial infarction (7.6% vs 9.2%), and slightly higher admission NIHSS scores (median 2 vs median 1) when compared with DAPT patients. After propensity score matching and multivariable adjustment, IVT was associated with sICH (4 [1.2%] vs 0) and END (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.5), and there was no difference in mRS 0-1 at 3 months (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.6). DISCUSSION: This analysis from a prospective nationwide stroke unit network indicates that IVT is not superior to DAPT in the setting of mild noncardioembolic stroke and may eventually be associated with harm. Further research focusing on acute therapy of mild stroke is highly warranted. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that IVT is not superior to DAPT in patients with acute mild (NIHSS score ≤3) noncardioembolic stroke. The study lacks the statistical precision to exclude clinically important superiority of either therapy.

From Three-Months to Five-Years: Sustaining Long-Term Benefits of Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke.

Background and Purpose: During the months and years post-stroke, treatment benefits from endovascular therapy (EVT) may be magnified by disability-related differences in morbidity/mortality or may be eroded by recurrent strokes and non-stroke-related disability/mortality. Understanding the extent to which EVT benefits may be sustained at 5 years, and the factors influencing this outcome, may help us better promote the sustenance of EVT benefits until 5 years post-stroke and beyond. Methods: In this review, undertaken 5 years after EVT became the standard of care, we searched PubMed and EMBASE to examine the current state of the literature on 5-year post-stroke outcomes, with particular attention to modifiable factors that influence outcomes between 3 months and 5 years post-EVT. Results: Prospective cohorts and follow-up data from EVT trials indicate that 3-month EVT benefits will likely translate into lower 5-year disability, mortality, institutionalization, and care costs and higher quality of life. However, these group-level data by no means guarantee maintenance of 3-month benefits for individual patients. We identify factors and associated "action items" for stroke teams/systems at three specific levels (medical care, individual psychosocioeconomic, and larger societal/environmental levels) that influence the long-term EVT outcome of a patient. Medical action items include optimizing stroke rehabilitation, clinical follow-up, secondary stroke prevention, infection prevention/control, and post-stroke depression care. Psychosocioeconomic aspects include addressing access to primary care, specialist clinics, and rehabilitation; affordability of healthy lifestyle choices and preventative therapies; and optimization of family/social support and return-to-work options. High-level societal efforts include improving accessibility of public/private spaces and transportation, empowering/engaging persons with disability in society, and investing in treatments/technologies to mitigate consequences of post-stroke disability. Conclusions: In the longtime horizon from 3 months to 5 years, several factors in the medical and societal spheres could negate EVT benefits. However, many factors can be leveraged to preserve or magnify treatment benefits, with opportunities to share responsibility with widening circles of care around the patient.