The safety and effectiveness of endovascular treatment for patients with vertebrobasilar artery occlusions: according to the BEST and BASICS criteria.

Background: Whether endovascular treatment (EVT) is safe and effective for vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (VBAO) is yet incompletely understood. Two RCTs, the endovascular treatment versus standard medical treatment for vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (BEST) trail and the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS), concentrating on this field were recently reported. Objective: We use real-world registry data of VBAO to compare the outcome of EVT inside and outside the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the BEST and BASICS study to testify the feasibility of the selection paradigms of VBAO in these trials. Methods: Consecutive patients with VBAO receiving EVT involving 21 stroke centers were retrospectively included. The safety outcomes [3-month mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and effectiveness outcomes (the proportion of 3-month functional independence (mRS of 0-2) and favorable outcome (mRS of 0-3)] were compared between VBAO patients who meet or failed to meet the BEST/BASICS selection criteria for EVT. Results: Our study cohort consisted of 577 VBAO patients who underwent EVT. Of them, 446 patients had pc-ASPECTS ≧8. Successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b or 3) was achieved in 85.4% (n = 493). There were 418 patients fulfilling the BEST criterion for EVT and 194 fulfilling the BASICS criterion. Regression analysis indicated that adherence to BEST or BASICS criterion for EVT was not independently related to most of the safety and effectiveness outcome except that adherence to BEST was significantly associated with the 3-month favorable outcome (ORBEST: 1.742, 95% CI: 1.087-2.790). However, when we put pc-ASPECTS into both criteria with a cut-off value of 8, meeting both BEST criterion plus pc-ASPECTS and BASICS criterion plus pc-ASPECTS was independently related to 3-month functional independence (ORBEST: 1.687, 95% CI: 1.077-2.644; ORBASIC: 1.653, 95% CI: 1.038-2.631) and favorable outcome (ORBEST: 2.280, 95% CI: 1.484-3.502; ORBASIC: 2.153, 95% CI: 1.372-3.378). Conclusion: Our study indicated that, based on real-world data of EVT, adherence to BEST or BASICS criterion for EVT was not independently associated with the safety and effectiveness outcome except that adherence to BEST was significantly related to the 3-month favorable outcome. However, the BEST or BASICS selection criterion and pc-ASPECTS ≧8 might be better paradigms for EVT patient selection.