Interaction between intravenous thrombolysis and clinical outcome between slow and fast progressors undergoing mechanical thrombectomy: a post-hoc analysis of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial.

BACKGROUND: In proximal occlusions, the effect of reperfusion therapies may differ between slow or fast progressors. We investigated the effect of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) (with alteplase) plus mechanical thrombectomy (MT) versus thrombectomy alone among slow versus fast stroke progressors. METHODS: The SWIFT-DIRECT trial data were analyzed: 408 patients randomized to IVT+MT or MT alone. Infarct growth speed was defined by the number of points of decay in the initial Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) divided by the onset-to-imaging time. The primary endpoint was 3-month functional independence (modified Rankin scale 0-2). In the primary analysis, the study population was dichotomized into slow and fast progressors using median infarct growth velocity. Secondary analysis was also conducted using quartiles of ASPECTS decay. RESULTS: We included 376 patients: 191 IVT+MT, 185 MT alone; median age 73 years (IQR 65-81); median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 17 (IQR 13-20). The median infarct growth velocity was 1.2 points/hour. Overall, we did not observe a significant interaction between the infarct growth speed and the allocation to either randomization group on the odds of favourable outcome (P=0.68). In the IVT+MT group, odds of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were significantly lower in slow progressors (22.8% vs 36.4%; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98) and higher among fast progressors (49.4% vs 26.8%; OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.82) (P value for interaction <0.001). Similar results were observed in secondary analyses. CONCLUSION: In this SWIFT-DIRECT subanalysis, we did not find evidence for a significant interaction of the velocity of infarct growth on the odds of favourable outcome according to treatment by MT alone or combined IVT+MT. However, prior IVT was associated with significantly reduced occurrence of any ICH among slow progressors whereas this was increased in fast progressors.

Association of intravenous thrombolysis and pre-interventional reperfusion: a post hoc analysis of the SWIFT DIRECT trial.

BACKGROUND: A potential benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is pre-interventional reperfusion. Currently, there are few data on the occurrence of pre-interventional reperfusion in patients randomized to IVT or no IVT before MT. METHODS: SWIFT DIRECT (Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy Plus Intravenous t-PA vs DIRECT Solitaire Stent-retriever Thrombectomy in Acute Anterior Circulation Stroke) was a randomized controlled trial including acute ischemic stroke IVT eligible patients being directly admitted to a comprehensive stroke center, with allocation to IVT with MT versus MT alone. The primary endpoint of this analysis was the occurrence of pre-interventional reperfusion, defined as a pre-interventional expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of ≥2a. The effect of IVT and potential treatment effect heterogeneity were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 396 patients, pre-interventional reperfusion occurred in 20 (10.0%) patients randomized to IVT with MT, and in 7 (3.6%) patients randomized to MT alone. Receiving IVT favored the occurrence of pre-interventional reperfusion (adjusted OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.87). There was no IVT treatment effect heterogeneity on the occurrence of pre-interventional reperfusion with different strata of Randomization-to-Groin-Puncture time (p for interaction=0.33), although the effect tended to be stronger in patients with a Randomization-to-Groin-Puncture time >28 min (adjusted OR 4.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 18.68). There were no significant differences in rates of functional outcomes between patients with and without pre-interventional reperfusion. CONCLUSION: Even for patients with proximal large vessel occlusions and direct access to MT, IVT resulted in an absolute increase of 6% in rates of pre-interventional reperfusion. The influence of time strata on the occurrence of pre-interventional reperfusion should be studied further in an individual patient data meta-analysis of comparable trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03192332.

Time to treatment with bridging intravenous alteplase before endovascular treatment:subanalysis of the randomized controlled SWIFT-DIRECT trial.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that treatment delays might be an effect modifier regarding risks and benefits of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before mechanical thrombectomy (MT). METHODS: We used the dataset of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial, which randomized 408 patients to IVT+MT or MT alone. Potential interactions between assignment to IVT+MT and expected time from onset-to-needle (OTN) as well as expected time from door-to-needle (DTN) were included in regression models. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included mRS shift, mortality, recanalization rates, and (symptomatic) intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours. RESULTS: We included 408 patients (IVT+MT 207, MT 201, median age 72 years (IQR 64-81), 209 (51.2%) female). The expected median OTN and DTN were 142 min and 54 min in the IVT+MT group and 129 min and 51 min in the MT alone group. Overall, there was no significant interaction between OTN and bridging IVT assignment regarding either the functional (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.30) and safety outcomes or the recanalization rates. Analysis of in-hospital delays showed no significant interaction between DTN and bridging IVT assignment regarding the dichotomized functional outcome (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.62), but the shift and mortality analyses suggested a greater benefit of IVT when in-hospital delays were short. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the effect of bridging IVT on functional independence is modified by overall or in-hospital treatment delays. Considering its low power, this subgroup analysis could have missed a clinically important effect, and exploratory analysis of secondary clinical outcomes indicated a potentially favorable effect of IVT with shorter in-hospital delays. Heterogeneity of the IVT effect size before MT should be further analyzed in individual patient meta-analysis of comparable trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03192332.

A meta-analysis of synovial biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infection: Synovasure™ is less effective than the ELISA-based alpha-defensin test.

PURPOSE: (1) To determine the overall accuracy of synovial alpha-defensin, synovial C-reactive protein (sCRP), interleukin-6 (sIL-6), and leukocyte esterase (sLE) as diagnostic markers for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and (2) to independantly evaluate the accuracy of both the laboratory-based ELISA alpha-defensin test and the Synovasure™ alpha-defensin test kit. METHODS: An EMBASE and MEDLINE (PubMed) database search was performed using a set of professionally set search terms. Two independent reviewers rated eligible articles. Sensitivity and specificity were meta-analysed using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: Accuracy values were extracted from 42 articles. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of the represented biomarkers were: alpha-defensin ELISA 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98), respectively; Synovasure™ test kit assay 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.89) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.76-0.96), respectively; sLE 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.92), respectively; sIL-6 0.76 (95% CI 0.65-0.84) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94), respectively; sCRP 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.93), respectively. CONCLUSION: The labararory-based alpha-defensin ELISA test showed the highest ever reported accuracy for PJI diagnosis. However, this did not apply for the Synovasure™ alpha-defensin test, which was comparable in its overall diagnostic accuracy to sCRP, sIL-6 and sLE. The later biomarkers also did not yield an overall diagnostic accuracy higher than that previously reported for synovial white cell count (sWBC) or culture bacteriology. Based on current evidence, no synovial biomarker should be applied as a standalone diagnostic tool. Furthermore, the use of the laboratory-based alpha-defensin ELISA test should be encouraged, still, the Synovasure™ alpha-defensin test kit should be critically appreciated. LEVER OF EVIDENCE: III.