Mechanical thrombectomy in acute basilar artery stroke: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for mechanical thrombectomy in acute basilar artery occlusion has until now remained inconclusive with basilar artery strokes associated with high rates of death and disability. This systematic review and meta-analysis will summarize the available evidence for the effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy in acute basilar artery occlusion compared to best medical therapy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarize the effect estimates for each outcome. RESULTS: We performed a random effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analysis of the four included randomized controlled trials comprising a total of 988 participants. We found a statistically significant improvement in the rates of those with a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3, RR 1.54, 1.16-2.06, p = 0.003) and functional independence (mRS 0-2, RR 1.69, 1.05-2.71, p = 0.03) in those who were treated with thrombectomy when compared to best medical therapy alone. Thrombectomy was associated with a higher level of sICH (RR 7.12, 2.16-23.54, p = 0.001) but this was not reflected in a higher mortality rate, conversely the mortality rate was significantly lower in the intervention group (RR 0.76, 0.65-0.89, p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of the recently presented randomized controlled studies is the first to confirm the disability and mortality benefit of mechanical thrombectomy in basilar artery stroke.

Perceptions on basilar artery occlusion management in China versus other countries: Analysis of the after the BEST of BASICS (ABBA) survey.

INTRODUCTION: Uncertainty remains on the optimal management of basilar artery occlusion (BAO). Two large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 2019 and 2021 demonstrated neutral results with respect to the use of endovascular therapy (EVT) for BAO. This study aimed to understand regional variation in physicians' perceptions towards the treatment of BAO as stratified by physician respondents from China versus outside China, prior to the publication of studies demonstrating a benefit of EVT for BAO. METHODS: An international online survey was conducted of stroke neurologists and neurointerventionalists from January to March 2022. Survey questions evaluated physician opinions toward the use of EVT in BAO, as well as the clinical and imaging features underlying treatment decisions. Respondents were dichotomized as either from China or from other countries and differences between groups were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1245 physician respondents across 73 countries of which 295 (23.7%) were from China. Compared to respondents from the rest of the world, respondents from China were more likely to be interventionalists (71.5% vs 35.0%; p < 0.0001). Overall, more than 95% of respondents believed that EVT was superior to medical therapy under certain circumstances. Chinese respondents were more likely to believe that further RCTs were necessary than respondents from other countries (93.6% vs 76.2%; p < 0.0001). Chinese respondents were more likely to use advanced imaging in later time windows and use a premorbid mRS threshold of ≤2 for BAO selection to EVT. CONCLUSION: Most stroke physicians believe EVT is beneficial in selected patients with BAO. Clinical and imaging modality differences were observed in the selection criteria used for EVT. There was greater inclination to enroll all trial eligible patients in a BAO RCT by respondents from China as compared to other parts of the world.

Basilar artery occlusion management: Specialist perspectives from an international survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two early basilar artery occlusion (BAO) randomized controlled trials did not establish the superiority of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) over medical management. While many providers continue to recommend EVT for acute BAO, perceptions of equipoise in randomizing patients with BAO to EVT versus medical management may differ between clinician specialties. METHODS: We conducted an international survey (January 18, 2022 to March 31, 2022) regarding management strategies in acute BAO prior to the announcement of two trials indicating the superiority of EVT, and compared responses between interventionalists (INTs) and non-interventionalists (nINTs). Selection practices for routine EVT and perceptions of equipoise regarding randomizing to medical management based on neuroimaging and clinical features were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Among the 1245 respondents (nINTs = 702), INTs more commonly believed that EVT was superior to medical management in acute BAO (98.5% vs. 95.1%, p < .01). A similar proportion of INTs and nINTs responded that they would not randomize a patient with BAO to EVT (29.4% vs. 26.7%), or that they would only under specific clinical circumstances (p = .45). Among respondents who would recommend EVT for BAO, there was no difference in the maximum prestroke disability, minimum stroke severity, or infarct burden on computed tomography between the two groups (p > .05), although nINTs more commonly preferred perfusion imaging (24.2% vs. 19.7%, p = .04). Among respondents who indicated they would randomize to medical management, INTs were more likely to randomize when the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was ≥10 (15.9% vs. 6.9%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Following the publication of two neutral clinical trials in BAO EVT, most stroke providers believed EVT to be superior to medical management in carefully selected patients, with most indicating they would not randomize a BAO patient to medical treatment. There were small differences in preference for advanced neuroimaging for patient selection, although these preferences were unsupported by clinical trial data at the time of the survey.

Specialist Perspectives on the Imaging Selection of Large Vessel Occlusion in the Late Window.

BACKGROUND: The proper imaging modality for use in the selection of patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) presenting in the late window remains controversial, despite current guidelines advocating the use of advanced imaging in this population. We sought to understand if clinicians with different specialty training differ in their approach to patient selection for EVT in the late time window. METHODS: We conducted an international survey of stroke and neurointerventional clinicians between January and May 2022 with questions focusing on imaging and treatment decisions of large vessel occlusion (LVO) patients presenting in the late window. Interventional neurologists, interventional neuroradiologists, and endovascular neurosurgeons were defined as interventionists whereas all other specialties were defined as non-interventionists. The non-interventionist group was defined by all other specialties of the respondents: stroke neurologist, neuroradiologist, emergency medicine physician, trainee (fellows and residents) and others. RESULTS: Of 3000 invited to participate, 1506 (1027 non-interventionists, 478 interventionists, 1 declined to specify) physicians completed the study. Interventionist respondents were more likely to proceed directly to EVT (39.5% vs. 19.5%; p < 0.0001) compared to non-interventionist respondents in patients with favorable ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score). Despite no difference in access to advanced imaging, interventionists were more likely to prefer CT/CTA alone (34.8% vs. 21.0%) and less likely to prefer CT/CTA/CTP (39.1% vs. 52.4%) for patient selection (p < 0.0001). When faced with uncertainty, non-interventionists were more likely to follow clinical guidelines (45.1% vs. 30.2%) while interventionists were more likely to follow their assessment of evidence (38.7% vs. 27.0%) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Interventionists were less likely to use advanced imaging techniques in selecting LVO patients presenting in the late window and more likely to base their decisions on their assessment of evidence rather than published guidelines. These results reflect gaps between interventionists and non-interventionists reliance on clinical guidelines, the limits of available evidence, and clinician belief in the utility of advanced imaging.

Basilar artery occlusion management: An international survey of middle versus high-income countries.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two early basilar artery occlusion (BAO) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not establish the superiority of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) over medical management. Yet many providers continued to recommend EVT. The goal of the present article is to compare physicians' diagnostic and management strategies of BAO among middle-income and high-income countries (MICs and HICs, respectively). METHODS: We conducted an international survey from January to March 2022 regarding management strategies in acute BAO, to examine clinical and imaging parameters influencing clinician management of patients with BAO. We compared responses between physicians from HIC and MIC. RESULTS: Among the 1245 respondents from 73 countries, 799 (64.2%) were from HIC, with the remaining 393 (31.6%) from MIC. Most respondents perceived that EVT was superior to medical management for acute BAO, but more so in respondents from HIC (98.0% vs. 94.2%, p < 0.01). MIC respondents were more likely to believe further RCTs were warranted (91.6% vs. 74.0%, p < 0.01) and were more likely to find it acceptable to enroll any patient who met a trial's criteria in the standard medical treatment arm (58.8% vs. 38.5%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In an area where clinical equipoise was called into question despite the lack of RCT evidence, we found that respondents from MIC were more likely to express willingness to enroll patients with BAO in an RCT than their HIC counterparts.

Impact of National Lockdown on the Hyperacute Stroke Care and Rapid Transient Ischaemic Attack Outpatient Service in a Comprehensive Tertiary Stroke Centre During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is having major implications for stroke services worldwide. We aimed to study the impact of the national lockdown period during the COVID-19 outbreak on stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) care in London, UK. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from a quality improvement registry of consecutive patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke and TIA to the Stroke Department, Imperial College Health Care Trust London during the national lockdown period (between March 23rd and 30th June 2020). As controls, we evaluated the clinical reports and stroke quality metrics of patients presenting with stroke or TIA in the same period of 2019. Results: Between March 23rd and 30th June 2020, we documented a fall in the number of stroke admissions by 31.33% and of TIA outpatient referrals by 24.44% compared to the same period in 2019. During the lockdown, we observed a significant increase in symptom onset-to-door time in patients presenting with stroke (median = 240 vs. 160 min, p = 0.020) and TIA (median = 3 vs. 0 days, p = 0.002) and a significant reduction in the total number of patients thrombolysed [27 (11.49%) vs. 46 (16.25%, p = 0.030)]. Patients in the 2020 cohort presented with a lower median pre-stroke mRS (p = 0.015), but an increased NIHSS (p = 0.002). We registered a marked decrease in mimic diagnoses compared to the same period of 2019. Statistically significant differences were found between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts in the time from onset to door (median 99 vs. 88 min, p = 0.026) and from onset to needle (median 148 vs. 126 min, p = 0.036) for thrombolysis whilst we did not observe any significant delay to reperfusion therapies (door-to-needle and door-to-groin puncture time). Conclusions: National lockdown in the UK due to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant decrease in acute stroke admission and TIA evaluations at our stroke center. Moreover, a lower proportion of acute stroke patients in the pandemic cohort benefited from reperfusion therapy. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term effects of the pandemic on stroke care.