Apixaban versus Aspirin for Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran were not superior to aspirin in trials of patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). It is unknown whether apixaban is superior to aspirin in patients with ESUS and known risk factors for cardioembolism. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-outcome trial of apixaban (5 mg twice daily) compared with aspirin (100 mg once daily) initiated within 28 days after ESUS in patients with at least one predictive factor for atrial fibrillation or a patent foramen ovale. Cardiac monitoring was mandatory, and aspirin treatment was switched to apixaban in case of atrial fibrillation detection. The primary outcome was any new ischemic lesion on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were randomly assigned to receive apixaban (178 patients) or aspirin (174 patients) at a median of 8 days after ESUS. At 12-month follow-up, MRI follow-up was available in 325 participants (92.3%). New ischemic lesions occurred in 23 of 169 (13.6%) participants in the apixaban group and in 25 of 156 (16.0%) participants in the aspirin group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.48; P=0.57). Major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in five and seven participants, respectively (1-year cumulative incidences, 2.9 and 4.2; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 2.16). Serious adverse event rates were 43.9 per 100 person-years in those given apixaban and 45.7 per 100 person-years in those given aspirin. The Apixaban for the Treatment of Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source trial was terminated after a prespecified interim analysis as a result of futility. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban treatment was not superior to cardiac monitoring-guided aspirin in preventing new ischemic lesions in an enriched ESUS population. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Medtronic Europe; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02427126.)

Repeat thrombectomy after large vessel re-occlusion: a propensity score matched analysis of technical and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) remains the standard of care for acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. However, the safety and efficacy of repeat thrombectomy (rEVT) in recurrent LVO remains unclear. This study uses a large real-world patient cohort to study technical and clinical outcomes after rEVT. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including patients who underwent thrombectomy between January 2013 and December 2022. Data were included from 21 comprehensive stroke centers globally through the Stroke Thrombectomy and Aneurysm Registry (STAR). Patients undergoing single EVT or rEVT within 30 days of LVO stroke were included in the study. Propensity score matching was used to compare patients undergoing single EVT versus rEVT. RESULTS: Out of a total of 7387 patients who underwent thrombectomy for LVO stroke, 90 (1.2%) patients underwent rEVT for the same vascular territory within 30 days. The median (IQR) time to re-occlusion was 2 (1-7) days. Compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing a single EVT procedure, patients undergoing rEVT had a comparable rate of good functional outcome and mortality rate, but a higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). There was a significant reduction in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of patients who underwent rEVT at discharge compared with baseline (-4.8±11.4; P=0.006). The rate of successful recanalization was similar in the single thrombectomy and rEVT groups (78% vs 80%, P=0.171) and between index and rEVT performed on the same patient (79% vs 80%; P=0.593). CONCLUSION: Short-interval rEVT is associated with an improvement in the NIHSS score following large vessel re-occlusion. Compared with single thrombectomy, there was a higher rate of sICH with rEVT, but without a significant impact on rates of functional independence or mortality.