Management of Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Related to Infective Endocarditis: Is Mechanical Thrombectomy a Safe Option?

INTRODUCTION: Acute ischemic stroke is the most common neurological complication of infective endocarditis. Intravenous thrombolysis is contraindicated in these patients due to a higher risk of hemorrhagic complications. Whether mechanical thrombectomy has some benefit in these patients remains unanswered although some favorable results can be found in literature. METHODS: We report twelve cases of acute ischemic stroke due to septic emboli treated with mechanical thrombectomy in two comprehensive stroke centers. RESULTS: Median age was 63 years (IQR 58.8-77.5 years). Diagnosis of infective endocarditis was previous to the diagnosis of stroke in three of the patients. There were five cases of prosthetic-valve endocarditis and eight cases of native-valve endocarditis. Two patients were treated with intravenous thrombolysis with an extensive subarachnoid hemorrhage in 24 h follow-up CT in one of them. Another patient suffered an arterial perforation during the endovascular procedure without successful recanalization. 6 of the patients (50%) developed some type of hemorrhagic complications with three cases of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Early neurological recovery was achieved in 3 (25%) patients. Functional independence at 3 months in patients with successful revascularization was reached in 50% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with large vessel acute ischemic stroke related to infective endocarditis, mechanical thrombectomy might be considered with some potential benefit reported. There may be a high risk of hemorrhagic complications, as known for intravenous thrombolysis in this condition, suggesting that this procedure should be carefully evaluated in these patients.

Cenobamate in patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy: A retrospective real-world study.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness and safety outcomes of cenobamate in a cohort of patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, phase 4 study on subjects receiving cenobamate in three Spanish centers. The primary endpoint was the retention rate at the last follow-up. The main secondary endpoints were the 50%-responder  and seizure-free rates at three months and the last follow-up. Other secondary endpoints were Global Clinical Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scores and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy with 24.7 years of disease evolution, ten previously tried ASM, and a 23.5% of previous epilepsy surgery were included. The retention rate at the last follow-up was 80.4%. The 50% responder rate in focal seizures at three months was 56.5% (median reduction per month 51%, 0-74.6; p < 0.0001) and in focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures was 63.6% (median reduction per month 89%, 0-100; p = 0.022). A total of 54.3% of subjects reported a reduction in the intensity of focal seizures, and 66% manifested clinically significant satisfaction. Cenobamate allowed a significant decrease in concomitant ASM, especially sodium channel blockers. TEAEs were reported in 43.1% of individuals, 85% of whom resolved or improved, with no new safety findings. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy treated with cenobamate according to standard clinical practice, there was evidence of a high reduction in both seizure frequency and intensity, with a manageable safety profile.