Vertebroplasty versus Active Control Intervention for Chronic Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: The VERTOS V Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Evidence regarding percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) for chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) remains limited. Purpose To compare pain relief, quality of life, and disability between PV and active control (anesthetic infiltration) interventions for chronic OVCF. Materials and Methods This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted between May 2013 and June 2019 in participants with pain due to OVCF lasting longer than 3 months with bone marrow edema present at MRI. Study participants were randomly assigned to undergo PV (n = 40) or active control intervention (n = 40). The primary outcome was pain severity, assessed with the visual analog scale (VAS) (range, 0-10) during 12 months after treatment. Secondary outcomes included Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) score (range, 0-100) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score (range, 0-100). Outcomes were analyzed according to a longitudinal multilevel model used to test the difference between groups in change from baseline across follow-up. Results The mean age of the 80 participants (54 women) was 69 years ± 10 (SD) in the PV group and 71 years ± 10 in the active control group. VAS score was 7.6 (95% CI: 7.0, 8.2) in the PV group and 7.3 (95% CI: 6.9, 7.8) in the active control group at baseline (P = .47) and 3.9 (95% CI: 3.1, 4.8) and 5.1 (95% CI: 4.3, 6.0), respectively, at month 12 (P = .045). At month 12, the group difference from baseline was 1.3 (95% CI: 0.1, 2.6; P = .02) for VAS, 5.2 (95% CI: 0.9, 9.4; P = .02) for QUALEFFO, and 7.1 (95% CI: -3.3, 17.5; P = .18) for RMDQ, favoring the PV group. Conclusion In the treatment of pain caused by chronic OVCFs, PV is more effective for pain relief and quality of life improvement than anesthetic injection alone, with similar improvement for disability between the groups. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01963039 © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Beall and De Leacy in this issue.

Safety and efficacy of aspirin, unfractionated heparin, both, or neither during endovascular stroke treatment (MR CLEAN-MED): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin and unfractionated heparin are often used during endovascular stroke treatment to improve reperfusion and outcomes. However, the effects and risks of anti-thrombotics for this indication are unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous aspirin, unfractionated heparin, both, or neither started during endovascular treatment in patients with ischaemic stroke. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design in 15 centres in the Netherlands. We enrolled adult patients (ie, ≥18 years) with ischaemic stroke due to an intracranial large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation in whom endovascular treatment could be initiated within 6 h of symptom onset. Eligible patients had a score of 2 or more on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and a CT or MRI ruling out intracranial haemorrhage. Randomisation was done using a web-based procedure with permuted blocks and stratified by centre. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either periprocedural intravenous aspirin (300 mg bolus) or no aspirin, and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive moderate-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 1250 IU/h for 6 h), low-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 500 IU/h for 6 h), or no unfractionated heparin. The primary outcome was the score on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was the main safety outcome. Analyses were based on intention to treat, and treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or common ORs, with adjustment for baseline prognostic factors. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN76741621. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2018, and Jan 27, 2021, we randomly assigned 663 patients; of whom, 628 (95%) provided deferred consent or died before consent could be asked and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. On Feb 4, 2021, after unblinding and analysis of the data, the trial steering committee permanently stopped patient recruitment and the trial was stopped for safety concerns. The risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was higher in patients allocated to receive aspirin than in those not receiving aspirin (43 [14%] of 310 vs 23 [7%] of 318; adjusted OR 1·95 [95% CI 1·13-3·35]) as well as in patients allocated to receive unfractionated heparin than in those not receiving unfractionated heparin (44 [13%] of 332 vs 22 [7%] of 296; 1·98 [1·14-3·46]). Both aspirin (adjusted common OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·69-1·21]) and unfractionated heparin (0·81 [0·61-1·08]) led to a non-significant shift towards worse modified Rankin Scale scores. INTERPRETATION: Periprocedural intravenous aspirin and unfractionated heparin during endovascular stroke treatment are both associated with an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage without evidence for a beneficial effect on functional outcome. FUNDING: The Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke consortium, the Brain Foundation Netherlands, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Stryker, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and the Dutch Heart Foundation.

Impact of the lockdown on acute stroke treatments during the first surge of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the impact of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the resulting lockdown on reperfusion treatments and door-to-treatment times during the first surge in Dutch comprehensive stroke centers. Furthermore, we studied the association between COVID-19-status and treatment times. METHODS: We included all patients receiving reperfusion treatment in 17 Dutch stroke centers from May 11th, 2017, until May 11th, 2020. We collected baseline characteristics, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at admission, onset-to-door time (ODT), door-to-needle time (DNT), door-to-groin time (DGT) and COVID-19-status at admission. Parameters during the lockdown (March 15th, 2020 until May 11th, 2020) were compared with those in the same period in 2019, and between groups stratified by COVID-19-status. We used nationwide data and extrapolated our findings to the increasing trend of EVT numbers since May 2017. RESULTS: A decline of 14% was seen in reperfusion treatments during lockdown, with a decline in both IVT and EVT delivery. DGT increased by 12 min (50 to 62 min, p-value of < 0.001). Furthermore, median NIHSS-scores were higher in COVID-19 - suspected or positive patients (7 to 11, p-value of 0.004), door-to-treatment times did not differ significantly when stratified for COVID-19-status. CONCLUSIONS: During the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decline in acute reperfusion treatments and a delay in DGT was seen, which indicates a target for attention. It also appeared that COVID-19-positive or -suspected patients had more severe neurologic symptoms, whereas their EVT-workflow was not affected.

A giant basilar artery perforator aneurysm.

Basilar artery perforator aneurysms (BAPA's) are a rare entity. Their natural history and treatment are unclear. We describe the largest BAPA reported thus far in literature in a 64-year-old Caucasian woman. This patient did not present with subarachnoid hemorrhage, but with left hemiparesis due to pontine ischemia. The aneurysm was initially misdiagnosed as a tumoral mass in a referring center. Angiography confirmed the presence of a BAPA and a flow diverter was successfully placed. This case shows us that a BAPA can mimic a tumoral mass and can cause ischemia due to mass effect without having ruptured. Both conservative and flow diverter placement seems viable treatment options. Individual patient characteristics and preferences should be considered in decision-making for treatment.

Endovascular treatment of dural arteriovenous fistulas with sinus drainage: Do we really need to protect the sinus?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dural arteriovenous fistulas (DAVFs) with direct antegrade sinus drainage have a benign natural history but bruit can be disabling. Disconnection of the draining sinus is considered curative. We present the treatment results of 14 patients with a dural arteriovenous fistula with antegrade sinus return with emphasis on functionality of the involved sinus and the need for sinus patency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2009 and January 2018, 14 patients with a DAVF with direct antegrade sinus drainage were treated in our institution. There were two men and 12 women (1: 6) with a mean age of 61 years (median 61, range 43-78). Clinical presentation was unbearable pulsatile bruit in all cases. Thirteen were draining in the sigmoid or transverse sinus and one drained into the inferior petrosal sinus. RESULTS: Twelve of 14 (86%) patients had a draining sinus non-functional for the brain. In ten of these 12 patients the sinus was occluded with liquid embolic or coils. In the two patients with a functional sinus, the fistula was successfully occluded without occluding the sinus. One patient with inferior petrosal sinus drainage required transvenous embolization. There were no permanent adverse events of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DAVFs with direct antegrade sinus drainage were cured using a strategy of endovascular transarterial and transvenous embolization. Most patients had a non-functional sinus that could be occluded for cure.

Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV): randomised sham controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether percutaneous vertebroplasty results in more pain relief than a sham procedure in patients with acute osteoporotic compression fractures of the vertebral body. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, sham controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Four community hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-15. PARTICIPANTS: 180 participants requiring treatment for acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures were randomised to either vertebroplasty (n=91) or a sham procedure (n=89). INTERVENTIONS: Participants received local subcutaneous lidocaine (lignocaine) and bupivacaine at each pedicle. The vertebroplasty group also received cementation, which was simulated in the sham procedure group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measure was mean reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at one day, one week, and one, three, six, and 12 months. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a decrease of 1.5 points in VAS scores from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were the differences between groups for changes in the quality of life for osteoporosis and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores during 12 months' follow-up. RESULTS: The mean reduction in VAS score was statistically significant in the vertebroplasty and sham procedure groups at all follow-up points after the procedure compared with baseline. The mean difference in VAS scores between groups was 0.20 (95% confidence interval -0.53 to 0.94) at baseline, -0.43 (-1.17 to 0.31) at one day, -0.11 (-0.85 to 0.63) at one week, 0.41 (-0.33 to 1.15) at one month, 0.21 (-0.54 to 0.96) at three months, 0.39 (-0.37 to 1.15) at six months, and 0.45 (-0.37 to 1.24) at 12 months. These changes in VAS scores did not, however, differ statistically significantly between the groups during 12 months' follow-up. The results for secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Use of analgesics (non-opioids, weak opioids, strong opioids) decreased statistically significantly in both groups at all time points, with no statistically significant differences between groups. Two adverse events occurred in the vertebroplasty group: one respiratory insufficiency and one vasovagal reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous vertebroplasty did not result in statistically significantly greater pain relief than a sham procedure during 12 months' follow-up among patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01200277.