Methylprednisolone as Adjunct to Endovascular Thrombectomy for Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke: The MARVEL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is uncertain whether intravenous methylprednisolone improves outcomes for patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion (LVO) undergoing endovascular thrombectomy. Objective: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of adjunctive intravenous low-dose methylprednisolone to endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke secondary to LVO. Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was implemented at 82 hospitals in China, enrolling 1680 patients with stroke and proximal intracranial LVO presenting within 24 hours of time last known to be well. Recruitment took place between February 9, 2022, and June 30, 2023, with a final follow-up on September 30, 2023. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to intravenous methylprednisolone (n = 839) at 2 mg/kg/d or placebo (n = 841) for 3 days adjunctive to endovascular thrombectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was disability level at 90 days as measured by the overall distribution of the modified Rankin Scale scores (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). The primary safety outcomes included mortality at 90 days and the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours. Results: Among 1680 patients randomized (median age, 69 years; 727 female [43.3%]), 1673 (99.6%) completed the trial. The median 90-day modified Rankin Scale score was 3 (IQR, 1-5) in the methylprednisolone group vs 3 (IQR, 1-6) in the placebo group (adjusted generalized odds ratio for a lower level of disability, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96-1.25]; P = .17). In the methylprednisolone group, there was a lower mortality rate (23.2% vs 28.5%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.98]; P = .03) and a lower rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (8.6% vs 11.7%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.55-0.99]; P = .04) compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke due to LVO undergoing endovascular thrombectomy, adjunctive methylprednisolone added to endovascular thrombectomy did not significantly improve the degree of overall disability. Trial Registration: ChiCTR.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR2100051729.

Tirofiban for Stroke without Large or Medium-Sized Vessel Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The effects of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke but who have no evidence of complete occlusion of large or medium-sized vessels have not been extensively studied. METHODS: In a multicenter trial in China, we enrolled patients with ischemic stroke without occlusion of large or medium-sized vessels and with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 5 or more and at least one moderately to severely weak limb. Eligible patients had any of four clinical presentations: ineligible for thrombolysis or thrombectomy and within 24 hours after the patient was last known to be well; progression of stroke symptoms 24 to 96 hours after onset; early neurologic deterioration after thrombolysis; or thrombolysis with no improvement at 4 to 24 hours. Patients were assigned to receive intravenous tirofiban (plus oral placebo) or oral aspirin (100 mg per day, plus intravenous placebo) for 2 days; all patients then received oral aspirin until day 90. The primary efficacy end point was an excellent outcome, defined as a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. Secondary end points included functional independence at 90 days and a quality-of-life score. The primary safety end points were death and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 606 patients were assigned to the tirofiban group and 571 to the aspirin group. Most patients had small infarctions that were presumed to be atherosclerotic. The percentage of patients with a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 29.1% with tirofiban and 22.2% with aspirin (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.53, P = 0.02). Results for secondary end points were generally not consistent with the results of the primary analysis. Mortality was similar in the two groups. The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was 1.0% in the tirofiban group and 0% in the aspirin group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving heterogeneous groups of patients with stroke of recent onset or progression of stroke symptoms and nonoccluded large and medium-sized cerebral vessels, intravenous tirofiban was associated with a greater likelihood of an excellent outcome than low-dose aspirin. Incidences of intracranial hemorrhages were low but slightly higher with tirofiban. (Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China; RESCUE BT2 Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2000029502.).

Safety and Efficacy of Endovascular Treatment for Progressive Stroke in Patients With Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion.

Background and Purpose: It is unknown the benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) for progressive stroke in patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EVT with standard medical therapy (SMT) in a population of BAO patients with progressive stroke. Methods: The EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR) is a national prospective registry of consecutive patients with acute BAO within 24 h of symptom onset. According to the applied therapy, all patients were divided into SMT and EVT groups. Subsequently, the EVT group was divided into early (≤6 h) and late groups (>6 h) according to the time window. The efficacy outcome was favorable functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 3) at 90 days. The safety outcomes included mortality within 90 days and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) after EVT. Results: The EVT cohort presented more frequently with a favorable functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 5.49; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-14.61, p = 0.01) and with a decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.54, p < 0.001). What's more, EVT still safe (P = 0.584, P = 0.492, respectively) and effective (P = 0.05) in patients with progressive stroke when the treatment time window exceeds 6 h. Conclusions: EVT was more effective and safer than SMT for progressive stroke in patients with BAO. Besides, EVT remains safe and effective in patients with progressive stroke when the treatment time window exceeds 6 h. Predictors of desirable outcome in progressive stroke patients undergoing EVT included lower baseline NIHSS score, higher baseline pc-ASPECTs, successful recanalization and shorter puncture to recanalization time.