Strokecopilot: a literature-based clinical decision support system for acute ischemic stroke treatment.

BACKGROUND: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is an immediate emergency whose management is becoming more and more personalized while facing a limited number of neurologists with high expertise. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are digital tools leveraging information and artificial intelligence technologies. Here, we present the Strokecopilot project, a CDSS for the management of the acute phase of AIS. It has been designed to support the evidence-based medicine reasoning of neurologists regarding the indications of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular treatments (ET). METHODS: Reference populations were manually extracted from the field's main guidelines and randomized clinical trials (RCT). Their characteristics were harmonized in a computerized reference database. We developed a web application whose algorithm identifies the reference populations matching the patient's characteristics. It returns the latter's outcomes in a graphical user interface (GUI), whose design has been driven by real-world practices. RESULTS: Strokecopilot has been released at www.digitalneurology.net . The reference database includes 25 reference populations from 2 guidelines and 15 RCTs. After a request, the reference populations matching the patient characteristics are displayed with a summary and a meta-analysis of their results. The status regarding IVT and ET indications are presented as "in guidelines", "in literature", or "outside literature references". The GUI is updated to provide several levels of explanation. Strokecopilot may be updated as the literature evolves by loading a new version of the reference populations' database. CONCLUSION: Strokecopilot is a literature-based CDSS, developed to support neurologists in the management of the acute phase of AIS.

Comparison of three antithrombotic strategies for emergent carotid stenting during stroke thrombectomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Periprocedural antithrombotic treatment is a key determinant for the risk-benefit balance of emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) during stroke thrombectomy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of three types of antithrombotic treatment. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected endovascular databases in four comprehensive stroke centers, including consecutive cases of eCAS for tandem lesion strokes between January 2019 and July 2021. During this period, each center prospectively applied one of three periprocedural protocols: (a) two centers administered aspirin (250 mg IV); (b) one center administered aspirin and heparin (bolus+24 hours infusion); and (c) one center applied an aggressive antiplatelet strategy consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel (loading doses), with added intravenous tirofiban if in-stent thrombosis was observed during thrombectomy. Dichotomized comparisons of outcomes were performed between aggressive versus non-aggressive strategy (aspirin±heparin) and aspirin+heparin versus aspirin-alone groups. RESULTS: Among 161 included patients, 62 received aspirin monotherapy, 38 aspirin+heparin, and 61 an aggressive treatment. Aggressive antiplatelet treatment was associated with an increased rate of excellent (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2c-3) recanalization and reduced carotid stent thrombosis at day 1 (3.5% vs 16.3%), compared with non-aggressive strategy. There were no significant differences in hemorrhagic transformation or 90-day mortality. There was a tendency towards better clinical outcome with aggressive treatment, without reaching statistical significance. Addition of heparin to aspirin was not associated with an increased rate of carotid stent patency. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive antiplatelet treatment was associated with improved intracranial recanalization and carotid stent patency, without safety concerns. These findings have implications for randomized trials and may be of utility for clinicians when making antithrombotic treatment choices.

Conservative versus aggressive antiplatelet strategy for emergent carotid stenting during stroke thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding optimal antiplatelet regimen for emergent carotid stenting during stroke thrombectomy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of an aggressive periprocedural antiplatelet strategy focused on preserving stent patency, in comparison with conservative antiplatelet strategy consisting of aspirin monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database in a comprehensive stroke center, including all cases of emergent carotid stenting for tandem lesions stroke between 01.03.2012-01.06.2021. Aggressive antiplatelet strategy consisted of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel loading doses, with added intravenous (IV) tirofiban if in-stent thrombosis was observed during thrombectomy. Clinical and radiological outcomes were compared between conservative and aggressive antiplatelet treatment groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis based on propensity scores. RESULTS: We included 132 cases (76.5% atheroma, 22.7% dissection, 0.7% carotid web). Forty-five patients (34%) cases received conservative antiplatelet therapy. The remaining 87 (65.9%) received aggressive antiplatelet therapy: 66 (75.8%) treated with DAPT, 21 (24.1%) with DAPT and tirofiban. Periprocedural heparin was avoided in all cases. In adjusted analysis of the weighted samples, aggressive antiplatelet strategy was associated with improved carotid stent patency (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.80, p = 0.021), higher proportion of moderate clinical outcome (mRS ≤ 3, aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.01-7.30, p = 0.04), with no significant differences in mortality and hemorrhagic transformation (HT) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, aggressive periprocedural antiplatelet strategy led to improved stent patency and clinical outcomes, without increased HT. Further prospective randomized research is warranted to identify the optimal combination of antiplatelet agents for emergent carotid stenting in the setting of acute stroke.

Local anesthesia versus general anesthesia during endovascular therapy for acute stroke: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, the choice of optimal anesthetic management during endovascular therapy (EVT) of acute ischemic stroke patients remains subject to debate. We aimed to compare functional outcomes and complication rates of EVT according to the first-line anesthetic management in two comprehensive stroke centers: local anesthesia (LA) versus general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected databases, identifying all consecutive EVT for strokes in the anterior circulation performed between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 in two EVT-capable stroke centers. One center performed EVT under LA in the first intention, while the other center systematically used GA. Using propensity score analysis, the two groups underwent 1:1 matching, then procedural metrics, complications, and clinical outcomes were compared. Good outcome was defined as 90 days modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤2, and successful recanalization as modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) 2b-3. RESULTS: During the study period, 219 patients were treated in the LA center and 142 in the GA center. Using the propensity score, 97 patients from each center were matched 1:1 according to the baseline characteristics. Local anesthesia was associated with a significantly lower proportion of good outcome (36.1% vs 52.0%, OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.87; p=0.039), lower rate of successful recanalization (70.1% vs 95.8%, OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39; p<0.001), and more procedural complications (14.4% vs 3.0%, OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.09 to 14.28; p=0.018). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality or symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, systematic use of GA for stroke EVT was associated with better clinical outcomes, higher recanalization rates, and fewer procedural complications compared with patients treated under LA as the primary anesthetic approach.