Outcomes in acute carotid-related stroke eligible for mechanical reperfusion: SAFEGUARD-STROKE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Carotid-related strokes (CRS) are largely unresponsive to intravenous thrombolysis and are often large and disabling. Little is known about contemporary CRS referral pathways and proportion of eligible patients who receive emergency mechanical reperfusion (EMR). METHODS: Referral pathways, serial imaging, treatment data, and neurologic outcomes were evaluated in consecutive CRS patients presenting over 18 months in catchment area of a major carotid disease referral center with proximal-protected CAS expertise, on-site neurology, and stroke thrombectomy capability (Acute Stroke of CArotid Artery Bifurcation Origin Treated With Use oF the MicronEt-covered CGUARD Stent - SAFEGUARD-STROKE Registry; companion to SAFEGUARD-STROKE Study NCT05195658). RESULTS: Of 101 EMR-eligible patients (31% i.v.-thrombolyzed, 39.5% women, age 39-89 years, 94.1% ASPECTS 9-10, 90.1% pre-stroke mRS 0-1), 57 (56.4%) were EMR-referred. Referrals were either endovascular (Comprehensive Stroke Centre, CSC, 21.0%; Stroke Thrombectomy-Capable CAS Centre, STCC, 70.2%) or to vascular surgery (VS, 1.8%), with >1 referral attempt in 7.0% patients (CSC/VS or VS/CSC or CSC/VS/STCC). Baseline clinical and imaging characteristics were not different between EMR-treated and EMR-untreated patients. EMR was delivered to 42.6% eligible patients (emergency carotid surgery 0%; STCC rejections 0%). On multivariable analysis, non-tandem CRS was a predictor of not getting referred for EMR (OR 0.36; 95%CI 0.14-0.93, P=0.03). Ninety-day neurologic status was profoundly better in EMR-treated patients; mRS 0-2 (83.7% vs. 34.5%); mRS 3-5 (11.6% vs. 53.4%), mRS 6 (4.6% vs. 12.1%); P<0.001 for all. CONCLUSIONS: EMR-treatment substantially improves CRS neurologic outcomes but only a minority of EMR-eligible patients receive EMR. To increase the likelihood of brain-saving treatment, EMR-eligible stroke referral and management pathways, including those for CSC/VS-rejected patients, should involve stroke thrombectomy-capable centres with endovascular carotid treatment expertise.

Clinical Outcomes of Extracranial Carotid Artery-Related Stroke Eligible for Mechanical Reperfusion on Top of Per-Guidelines Thrombolytic Therapy: Analysis from a 6-Month Consecutive Patient Sample in 2 Centers.

BACKGROUND Systemic intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) are guideline-recommended reperfusion therapies in large-vessel-occlusion ischemic stroke. However, for acute ischemic stroke of extracranial carotid artery origin (AIS-CA) there have been no specific trials, resulting in a data gap. MATERIAL AND METHODS We evaluated referral/treatment pathways, serial imaging, and neurologic 90-day outcomes in consecutive patients, presenting in a real-life series in 2 stroke centers over a period of 6 months, with AIS-CA eligible for emergency mechanical reperfusion (EMR) on top of thrombolysis as per guideline criteria. RESULTS Of 30 EMR-eligible patients (33.3% in-window for thrombolysis and thrombolysed, 73.3% male, age 39-87 years, median Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) 10, pre-stroke mRS 0-1 in all, tandem lesions 26.7%), 20 (66.7%) were EMR-referred (60% - endovascular, 6.7% - surgery referrals). Only 40% received EMR, nearly exclusively in stroke centers with carotid artery stenting (CAS) expertise (100% eligible patient acceptance rate, 100% treatment delivery involving CAS±MT with culprit lesion sequestration using micronet-covered stents). The emergency surgery rate was 0%. Baseline clinical and imaging characteristics did not differ between EMR-treated and EMR-untreated patients. Ninety-day neurologic status was profoundly better in EMR-treated patients: mRS 0-2 (91.7% vs 0%; P<0.001); mRS 3-5 (8.3% vs 88.9%; P<0.001), mRS 6 (0% vs 11.1%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In a real-life AIS-CA setting, the referral rate of EMR-eligible patients for EMR was low, and the treatment rate was even lower. AIS-CA revascularization was delivered predominantly in stroke thrombectomy-capable cardioangiology centers, resulting in overwhelmingly superior patient outcome. Large vessel occlusion stroke referral and management pathways should involve centers with proximal-protected CAS expertise. AIS-CA, irrespective of any thrombolysis administration, is a hyperacute cerebral emergency and EMR-eligible patients should be immediately referred for mechanical reperfusion.