Impact of presenting stroke severity and thrombolysis on outcomes following urgent carotid interventions.

BACKGROUND: Carotid interventions are increasingly performed in select patients following acute stroke. We aimed to determine the effects of presenting stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS]) and use of systemic thrombolysis (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) on discharge neurological outcomes (modified Rankin scale [mRS]) after urgent carotid endarterectomy (uCEA) and urgent carotid artery stenting (uCAS). METHODS: Patients undergoing uCEA/uCAS at a tertiary Comprehensive Stroke Center (January 2015 to May 2022) were divided into two cohorts: (1) no thrombolysis (uCEA/uCAS only) and (2) use of thrombolysis before the carotid intervention (tPA + uCEA/uCAS). Outcomes were discharge mRS and 30-day complications. Regression models were used to determine an association between tPA use and presenting stroke severity (NIHSS) and discharge neurological outcomes (mRS). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight patients underwent uCEA/uCAS (uCEA/uCAS only, n = 186; tPA + uCEA/uCAS, n = 52) over 7 years. In the thrombolysis cohort compared with the uCEA/uCAS only cohort, the mean presenting stroke severity was higher (NIHSS = 7.6 vs 3.8; P = .001), and more patients presented with moderate to severe strokes (57.7% vs 30.2% with NIHSS >4). The 30-day stroke, death, and myocardial infarction rates in the uCEA/uCAS only vs tPA + uCEA/uCAS were 8.1% vs 11.5% (P = .416), 0% vs 9.6% (P < .001), and 0.5% vs 1.9% (P = .39), respectively. The 30-day stroke/hemorrhagic conversion and myocardial infarction rates did not differ with tPA use; however, the difference in deaths was significantly higher in the tPA + uCEA/uCAS cohort (P < .001). There was no difference in neurological functional outcome with or without thrombolysis use (mean mRS, 2.1 vs 1.7; P = .061). For both minor strokes (NIHSS ≤4 vs NIHSS >4: relative risk, 1.58 vs 1.58, tPA vs no tPA, respectively, P = .997) and moderate strokes (NIHSS ≤10 vs NIHSS >10: relative risk, 1.94 vs 2.08, tPA vs no tPA, respectively; P = .891), the likelihood of discharge functional independence (mRS score of ≤2) was not influenced by tPA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a higher presenting stroke severity (NIHSS) had worse neurological functional outcomes (mRS). Patients presenting with minor and moderate strokes were more likely to have discharge neurological functional independence (mRS of ≤2), regardless of whether they received tPA or not. Overall, presenting NIHSS is predictive of discharge neurological functional autonomy and is not influenced by the use of thrombolysis.

Neurologic outcomes of carotid and other emergent interventions for ischemic stroke over 6 years with dataset enhanced by machine learning.

BACKGROUND: The current mainstays of ischemic stroke treatment include the use of thrombolysis (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]), urgent carotid endarterectomy (uCEA) or urgent carotid artery stenting (uCAS), and mechanical endovascular reperfusion/thrombectomy (MER). Scarce data describe the presenting stroke severity and neurologic outcomes for these acute ischemic stroke interventions, alone or in combination. The authors hypothesize that patients undergoing carotid interventions experience better functional neurologic outcomes than other stroke interventions. METHODS: A comprehensive stroke center dataset was combined with data for stroke-related procedures, comorbidities, complications, and physician documentation collected from electronic medical record data. A total of 10,975 patient encounter records from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2021, were retrieved. The presenting stroke severity was determined by vascular/stroke neurologists using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Functional neurologic outcomes were reported using the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score, which quantifies the degree of neurologic disability. Because mRS values were only available for 3627 encounters in the original dataset, the authors developed a machine learning algorithm to analyze physician documentation and assign an mRS value. After the exclusion and machine learning analysis, a total of 5170 patient encounters were included for statistical analysis. Statistical analyses included the χ2 test, one-way analysis of variance and logistic regression on 30-day complications, stroke severity, and neurologic outcomes. RESULTS: Patients were divided into five cohorts: (1) uCEA or uCAS (n = 189), (2) tPA alone (n = 1053), (3) MER alone (n = 418), (4) tPA + MER (n = 199), and (5) no intervention (n = 3311). Patients undergoing uCEA/uCAS were significantly more likely to be male, smokers, and have a history of peripheral arterial disease compared with other stroke cohorts. The length of stay was shortest for patients who only received tPA or no intervention (6 days), followed by uCEA/uCAS (7.2 days), MER (10.2 days), and tPA + MER (8.8 days) cohorts (P < .001). The 30-day mortality was highest in the MER cohort (12.2%) and lowest in the uCEA/uCAS cohort (2.6%). The uCEA/uCAS cohort compared with other cohorts had the lowest presenting stroke severity (NIHSS 4.9 vs NIHSS 6.9-16.0), and best neurologic outcomes (mRS 1.7 vs mRS 1.8-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: After an ischemic stroke, patients undergoing urgent carotid interventions had the lowest presenting stroke severity (NIHSS) and highest rate of independent neurologic outcomes (mRS) compared with other stroke interventions. Incoming stroke severity correlates with functional neurologic outcomes, and patients who present with an NIHSS of 10 or less who undergo uCEA/uCAS have a high likelihood of independent neurologic functional outcome (mRS of ≤2).

Rapid progression of carotid stenosis was rare in a large integrated healthcare system during an eight-year period.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated the rapid progression of carotid stenosis on a large scale. We created a custom software algorithm to analyze an electronic medical record database to examine the natural progression of carotid stenosis, identify a subset of patients with rapid progression, and evaluate the specific patient risk factors associated with this rapid progression. METHODS: Patients in a large integrated healthcare system who had undergone two or more carotid ultrasound scans from August 2010 to August 2018 were identified. We did not distinguish between those with an established carotid stenosis diagnosis and those with a screening ultrasound scan. We used our novel algorithm to extract data from their carotid ultrasound reports. The degrees of carotid stenosis were categorized as follows: level 1, 0% to 39%; level 2, 40% to 59%; level 3, 60% to 79%; level 4, 80% to 99%; and level 5, complete occlusion. The primary endpoint was rapid vs slow progression of carotid stenosis, with rapid progression defined as an increase of two or more levels within any 18-month period of the study, regardless of the date of the initial ultrasound scan. The association of the demographic and clinical characteristics with rapid progression was assessed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: From a cohort of 4.4 million patients, we identified 4982 patients with two or more carotid ultrasound scans and a median follow-up period of 13.1 months (range, 0.1-93.7 months). Of the 4982 patients, 879 (17.6%) had shown progression of carotid stenosis. Only 116 patients (2.3%) had had progression to level 4 (80%-99% stenosis) from any starting level during a median of 11.5 months. A total of 180 patients (3.6%) were identified as experiencing rapid progression during a median follow-up of 9.9 months. The final multivariable analysis showed that younger age (P < .01), white race (P = .02), lower body mass index (P = .01), a diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (P = .03), and a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack (P < .01) were associated with rapid progression. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel algorithm to extract data from >4 million patient records, we found that rapid progression of carotid stenosis appears to be rare. Although 17.6% of patients showed any degree of progression, only 3.6% had experienced rapid progression. Among those with any disease progression, 20.5% had experienced rapid progression. Although the overall incidence of rapid progression was low, patients with any progression might warrant close follow-up, especially if they have the associated risk factors for rapid progression. The custom software algorithm might be a powerful tool for creating and evaluating large datasets.