RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: In patients with stroke attributable to cervical artery dissection, we compared endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis regarding three-month outcome, recanalisation and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicentre intravenous thrombolysis/endovascular therapy-register-based cohort study, all consecutive cervical artery dissection patients with intracranial artery occlusion treated within 6 h were eligible for analysis. Endovascular therapy patients (with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis) were compared to intravenous thrombolysis patients regarding (i) excellent three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1), (ii) symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (iii) recanalisation of the occluded intracranial artery and (iv) death. Upon a systematic literature review, we performed a meta-analysis comparing endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients regarding three-month outcome using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model. RESULTS: Among 62 cervical artery dissection patients (median age 48.8 years), 24 received intravenous thrombolysis and 38 received endovascular therapy. Excellent three-month outcome occurred in 23.7% endovascular therapy and 20.8% with intravenous thrombolysis patients. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred solely among endovascular therapy patients (5/38 patients, 13.2%) while four (80%) of these patients had bridging therapy; 6/38 endovascular therapy and 0/24 intravenous thrombolysis patients died. Four of these 6 endovascular therapy patients had bridging therapy. Recanalisation was achieved in 84.2% endovascular therapy patients and 66.7% intravenous thrombolysis patients (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval [0.9-11.38]). Sensitivity analyses in a subgroup treated within 4.5 h revealed a higher recanalisation rate among endovascular therapy patients (odds ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval [1.00-14.95]), but no change in the key clinical findings. In a meta-analysis across eight studies (n = 212 patients), cervical artery dissection patients (110 intravenous thrombolysis and 102 endovascular therapy) showed identical odds for favourable outcome (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.38-2.44]) among endovascular therapy patients and intravenous thrombolysis patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In this cohort study, there was no clear signal of superiority of endovascular therapy over intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients, which - given the limitation of our sample size - does not prove that endovascular therapy in these patients cannot be superior in future studies. The observation that symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and deaths in the endovascular therapy group occurred predominantly in bridging patients requires further investigation.
RESUMEN
Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) as treatment in acute ischaemic strokes may be insufficient to achieve recanalisation in certain patients. Predicting probability of non-recanalisation after IVT may have the potential to influence patient selection to more aggressive management strategies. We aimed at deriving and internally validating a predictive score for post-thrombolytic non-recanalisation, using clinical and radiological variables. In thrombolysis registries from four Swiss academic stroke centres (Lausanne, Bern, Basel and Geneva), patients were selected with large arterial occlusion on acute imaging and with repeated arterial assessment at 24 hours. Based on a logistic regression analysis, an integer-based score for each covariate of the fitted multivariate model was generated. Performance of integer-based predictive model was assessed by bootstrapping available data and cross validation (delete-d method). In 599 thrombolysed strokes, five variables were identified as independent predictors of absence of recanalisation: Acute glucose > 7 mmol/l (A), significant extracranial vessel STenosis (ST), decreased Range of visual fields (R), large Arterial occlusion (A) and decreased Level of consciousness (L). All variables were weighted 1, except for (L) which obtained 2 points based on ß-coefficients on the logistic scale. ASTRAL-R scores 0, 3 and 6 corresponded to non-recanalisation probabilities of 18, 44 and 74 % respectively. Predictive ability showed AUC of 0.66 (95 %CI, 0.61-0.70) when using bootstrap and 0.66 (0.63-0.68) when using delete-d cross validation. In conclusion, the 5-item ASTRAL-R score moderately predicts non-recanalisation at 24 hours in thrombolysed ischaemic strokes. If its performance can be confirmed by external validation and its clinical usefulness can be proven, the score may influence patient selection for more aggressive revascularisation strategies in routine clinical practice.
