Comparison Between Three Commonly Used Large-Bore Aspiration Catheters in Terms of Successful Recanalization and First-Passage Effect.

OBJECTIVES: To compare three commonly used large-bore aspiration catheters in terms of final successful recanalization rate and first-passage successful and complete recanalization rates (the so called "first-passage effect"). MATERIALS AND METHODS: it is an observational retrospective multicenter study conducted in three Italian high-volume tertiary stroke centers between January 2017 and May 2019. The study population included all consecutive patients with an ischemic stroke due to middle cerebral artery occlusion (M1 segment only) that underwent intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy with contact aspiration as first-line strategy within 24 hours from symptoms onset. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-one patients were included in the study. Multivariable logistic regression analysis comparing the three catheters revealed no differences in terms of successful recanalization. Sofia 6 Plus catheter was associated with better first-passage successful recanalization [OR, 9.09; 95% CI, 2.66-31.03] (p<0.001) and first-passage complete recanalization [OR: 3.73; 95% CI: 1.43-9.72] (p=0.007) whereas rt-PA was associated with worse first-passage recanalization [OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.93] (p=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: No differences between the three catheters were reported in terms of successful recanalization. Sofia 6 Plus has proven to be superior in achieving both successful and complete first-passage recanalization. Conversely, rt-PA was found to be a negative predicting factor of first-passage effect.

Complications of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: Incidence, risk factors, and clinical relevance in the Italian Registry of Endovascular Treatment in acute stroke.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data concerning procedure-related complications of endovascular thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion strokes. AIMS: We evaluated the cumulative incidence, the clinical relevance in terms of increased disability and mortality, and risk factors for complications. METHODS: From January 2011 to December 2017, 4799 patients were enrolled by 36 centers in the Italian Registry of Endovascular Stroke Treatment. Data on demographic and procedural characteristics, complications, and clinical outcome at three months were prospectively collected. RESULTS: The complications cumulative incidence was 201 per 1000 patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy. Ongoing antiplatelet therapy (p < 0.01; OR 1.82, 95% CI: 1.21-2.73) and large vessel occlusion site (carotid-T, p < 0.03; OR 3.05, 95% CI: 1.13-8.19; M2-segment-MCA, p < 0.01; OR 4.54, 95% CI: 1.66-12.44) were associated with a higher risk of subarachnoid hemorrhage/arterial perforation. Thrombectomy alone (p < 0.01; OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31-0.83) and younger age (p < 0.04; OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.97-0.99) revealed a lower risk of developing dissection. M2-segment-MCA occlusion (p < 0.01; OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.19-0.64) and hypertension (p < 0.04; OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.6-0.98) were less related to clot embolization. Higher NIHSS at onset (p < 0.01; OR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06), longer groin-to-reperfusion time (p < 0.01; OR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07), diabetes (p < 0.01; OR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.25-2.23), and LVO site (carotid-T, p < 0.01; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.26-3.05; M2-segment-MCA, p < 0.02; OR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.08-2.42) were associated with a higher risk of developing symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage compared to no/asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. The subgroup of patients treated with thrombectomy alone presented a lower risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (p < 0.01; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.90). Subarachnoid hemorrhage/arterial perforation and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage after endovascular thrombectomy worsen both functional independence and mortality at three-month follow-up (p < 0.01). Distal embolization is associated with neurological deterioration (p < 0.01), while arterial dissection did not affect clinical outcome at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Complications globally considered are not uncommon and may result in poor clinical outcome. Early recognition of risk factors might help to prevent complications and manage them appropriately in order to maximize endovascular thrombectomy benefits.

Direct thrombectomy for stroke in the presence of absolute exclusion criteria for thrombolysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT)-ineligible patients undergoing direct thrombectomy tended to have poorer functional outcome as compared with IVT-eligible patients undergoing bridging therapy. We aimed to assess radiological and functional outcomes in large vessel occlusion-related stroke patients receiving direct thrombectomy in the presence of absolute exclusion criteria for IVT vs relative exclusion criteria for IVT and vs non-exclusion criteria for IVT. METHODS: A cohort study on prospectively collected data from 2282 patients enrolled in the Italian Registry of Endovascular Treatment in Acute Stroke cohort for treatment with direct thrombectomy (n = 486, absolute exclusion criteria for IVT alone; n = 384, absolute in combination with relative exclusion criteria for IVT; n = 777, relative exclusion criteria for IVT alone; n = 635, non-exclusion criteria for IVT). RESULTS: After adjustment for unbalanced variables (model 1), ORs for 3-month death was higher in the presence of absolute exclusion criteria for IVT alone (vs relative exclusion criteria for IVT alone) (1.595, 95% CI 1.042-2.440) and in the presence of absolute exclusion criteria for IVT alone (vs non-exclusion criteria for IVT) (1.235, 95% CI 1.014-1.504). After adjustment for predefined variables (model 2: age, sex, pre-stroke mRS ≤ 1, NIHSS, occlusion in the anterior circulation, onset-to-groin time, and procedure time), ORs for 3-month death was higher in the presence of absolute exclusion criteria for IVT alone (vs relative exclusion criteria for IVT alone) (1.235, 95% CI 1.014-1.504) and in the presence of absolute exclusion criteria for IVT alone (vs non-exclusion criteria for IVT) (1.246, 95% CI 1.039-1.495). No significant difference was found between the groups as regards any type of intracerebral hemorrhage and parenchymal hematoma within 24 h, successful and complete recanalization after procedure, and modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 at 3 months. After adjustment for predefined variables of model 2, ORs for death were higher in the presence of recent administration of IV heparin (OR: 2.077), platelet count < 100,000/mm3 (OR: 4.798), bacterial endocarditis (OR: 15.069), neoplasm with increased hemorrhagic risk (OR: 6.046), and severe liver disease (OR: 6.124). CONCLUSIONS: Radiological outcomes were similar after direct thrombectomy in patients with absolute, relative, and non- exclusion criteria for IVT, while an increase of fatal outcome was observed in the presence of some absolute exclusion criterion for IVT.

Longitudinal Study on Low-Dose Aspirin versus Placebo Administration in Silent Brain Infarcts: The Silence Study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated low-dose aspirin (ASA) efficacy and safety in subjects with silent brain infarcts (SBIs) in preventing new cerebrovascular (CVD) events as well as cognitive impairment. METHODS: We included subjects aged ≥45 years, with at least one SBI and no previous CVD. Subjects were followed up to 4 years assessing CVD and SBI incidence as primary endpoint and as secondary endpoints: (a) cardiovascular and adverse events and (b) cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects received ASA while 47 were untreated. Primary endpoint occurred in 9 controls (19.1%) versus 2 (5.6%) in the ASA group (p=0.10). Secondary endpoints did not differ in the two groups. Only baseline leukoaraiosis predicts primary [OR 5.4 (95%CI 1.3-22.9, p=0.022)] and secondary endpoint-a [3.2 (95%CI 1.1-9.6, p=0.040)] occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: These data show an increase of new CVD events in the untreated group. Despite the study limitations, SBI seems to be a negative prognostic factor and ASA preventive treatment might improve SBI prognosis. EU Clinical trial is registered with EudraCT Number: 2005-000996-16; Sponsor Protocol Number: 694/30.06.04.