Dexamethasone versus Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma.

BACKGROUND: The role of glucocorticoids without surgical evacuation in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, controlled, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned symptomatic patients with chronic subdural hematoma in a 1:1 ratio to a 19-day tapering course of dexamethasone or to burr-hole drainage. The primary end point was the functional outcome at 3 months after randomization, as assessed by the score on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). Noninferiority was defined by a lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for a better functional outcome with dexamethasone than with surgery of 0.9 or more. Secondary end points included scores on the Markwalder Grading Scale of symptom severity and on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale. RESULTS: From September 2016 through February 2021, we enrolled 252 patients of a planned sample size of 420; 127 were assigned to the dexamethasone group and 125 to the surgery group. The mean age of the patients was 74 years, and 77% were men. The trial was terminated early by the data and safety monitoring board owing to safety and outcome concerns in the dexamethasone group. The adjusted common odds ratio for a lower (better) score on the modified Rankin scale at 3 months with dexamethasone than with surgery was 0.55 (95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.90), which failed to show noninferiority of dexamethasone. The scores on the Markwalder Grading Scale and Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale were generally supportive of the results of the primary analysis. Complications occurred in 59% of the patients in the dexamethasone group and 32% of those in the surgery group, and additional surgery was performed in 55% and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a trial that involved patients with chronic subdural hematoma and that was stopped early, dexamethasone treatment was not found to be noninferior to burr-hole drainage with respect to functional outcomes and was associated with more complications and a greater likelihood of later surgery. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; DECSA EudraCT number, 2015-001563-39.).

Use of the Win Ratio for Analysis of Stroke Trials: Description, Illustration, and Planned Use in the Second European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST-2).

Randomized trials in stroke often focus on outcomes beyond a single clinical event. Trials of stroke prevention commonly use composite outcomes that include multiple components (eg, death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). A major limitation is that all events count equally but may differ markedly in terms of clinical severity. Trials in acute stroke often use ordinal outcomes or scale scores. Limitations include the requirement for statistical assumptions and the difficulty of handling the competing risk of death. We introduce the win ratio as an alternative method. It works by placing components of a composite into a hierarchy, whereby clinically more important outcomes take priority over less important ones. We illustrate how it works using data from 2 major stroke trials: the ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study, a trial in stroke prevention) and the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). Potential benefits of the win ratio approach include the possibility to (1) emphasize the clinically most important outcomes, (2) combine components of different outcome types into a composite (eg, a mixture of time-to-event, continuous, and categorical), and (3) naturally handle the competing risk of death in analyses of quantitative outcomes. The win ratio will be used in the upcoming analysis of the ECST-2 (Second European Carotid Surgery Trial), which has a hierarchical primary outcome of (1) time to perioperative death, fatal stroke, or fatal myocardial infarction (most important); (2) time to nonfatal stroke; (3) time to nonfatal myocardial infarction (excluding silent infarcts); and (4) new silent cerebral infarct on brain imaging (least important). The win ratio provides a useful clinically relevant method for analyzing trial outcomes. It has some advantages over conventional methods, and we recommend its wider application in future stroke trials.

Value of intravenous thrombolysis in endovascular treatment for large-vessel anterior circulation stroke: individual participant data meta-analysis of six randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis is recommended before endovascular treatment, but its value has been questioned in patients who are admitted directly to centres capable of endovascular treatment. Existing randomised controlled trials have indicated non-inferiority of endovascular treatment alone or have been statistically inconclusive. We formed the Improving Reperfusion Strategies in Acute Ischaemic Stroke collaboration to assess non-inferiority of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis to establish non-inferiority of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment. We searched PubMed and MEDLINE with the terms "stroke", "endovascular treatment", "intravenous thrombolysis", and synonyms for articles published from database inception to March 9, 2023. We included randomised controlled trials on the topic of interest, without language restrictions. Authors of the identified trials agreed to take part, and individual participant data were provided by the principal investigators of the respective trials and collated centrally by the collaborators. Our primary outcome was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Non-inferiority of endovascular treatment alone was assessed using a lower boundary of 0·82 for the 95% CI around the adjusted common odds ratio (acOR) for shift towards improved outcome (analogous to 5% absolute difference in functional independence) with ordinal regression. We used mixed-effects models for all analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023411986. FINDINGS: We identified 1081 studies, and six studies (n=2313; 1153 participants randomly assigned to receive endovascular treatment alone and 1160 randomly assigned to receive intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment) were eligible for analysis. The risk of bias of the included studies was low to moderate. Variability between studies was small, and mainly related to the choice and dose of the thrombolytic drug and country of execution. The median mRS score at 90 days was 3 (IQR 1-5) for participants who received endovascular treatment alone and 2 (1-4) for participants who received intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment (acOR 0·89, 95% CI 0·76-1·04). Any intracranial haemorrhage (0·82, 0·68-0·99) occurred less frequently with endovascular treatment alone than with intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and mortality rates did not differ significantly. INTERPRETATION: We did not establish non-inferiority of endovascular treatment alone compared with intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment in patients presenting directly at endovascular treatment centres. Further research could focus on cost-effectiveness analysis and on individualised decisions when patient characteristics, medication shortages, or delays are expected to offset a potential benefit of administering intravenous thrombolysis before endovascular treatment. FUNDING: Stryker and Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam.

Costs and health effects of CT perfusion-based selection for endovascular thrombectomy within 6 hours of stroke onset: a model-based health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although CT perfusion (CTP) is often incorporated in acute stroke workflows, it remains largely unclear what the associated costs and health implications are in the long run of CTP-based patient selection for endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset with a large vessel occlusion. METHODS: Patients with a large vessel occlusion were included from a Dutch nationwide cohort (n=703) if CTP imaging was performed before EVT within 6 hours after stroke onset. Simulated cost and health effects during 5 and 10 years follow-up were compared between CTP based patient selection for EVT and providing EVT to all patients. Outcome measures were the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay of €80 000 per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), difference in costs from a healthcare payer perspective (ΔCosts) and quality-adjusted life years (ΔQALY) per 1000 patients for 1000 model iterations as outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with treating all patients, CTP-based selection for EVT at the optimised ischaemic core volume (ICV≥110 mL) or core-penumbra mismatch ratio (MMR≤1.4) thresholds resulted in losses of health (median ΔQALYs for ICV≥110 mL: -3.3 (IQR: -5.9 to -1.1), for MMR≤1.4: 0.0 (IQR: -1.3 to 0.0)) with median ΔCosts for ICV≥110 mL of -€348 966 (IQR: -€712 406 to -€51 158) and for MMR≤1.4 of €266 513 (IQR: €229 403 to €380 110)) per 1000 patients. Sensitivity analyses did not yield any scenarios for CTP-based selection of patients for EVT that were cost-effective for improving health, including patients aged ≥80 years CONCLUSION: In EVT-eligible patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset, excluding patients based on CTP parameters was not cost-effective and could potentially harm patients.

Cost-effectiveness of CT perfusion for the detection of large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke followed by endovascular treatment: a model-based health economic evaluation study.

OBJECTIVES: CT perfusion (CTP) has been suggested to increase the rate of large vessel occlusion (LVO) detection in patients suspected of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) if used in addition to a standard diagnostic imaging regime of CT angiography (CTA) and non-contrast CT (NCCT). The aim of this study was to estimate the costs and health effects of additional CTP for endovascular treatment (EVT)-eligible occlusion detection using model-based analyses. METHODS: In this Dutch, nationwide retrospective cohort study with model-based health economic evaluation, data from 701 EVT-treated patients with available CTP results were included (January 2018-March 2022; trialregister.nl:NL7974). We compared a cohort undergoing NCCT, CTA, and CTP (NCCT + CTA + CTP) with a generated counterfactual where NCCT and CTA (NCCT + CTA) was used for LVO detection. The NCCT + CTA strategy was simulated using diagnostic accuracy values and EVT effects from the literature. A Markov model was used to simulate 10-year follow-up. We adopted a healthcare payer perspective for costs in euros and health gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the net monetary benefit (NMB) at a willingness to pay of €80,000; secondary outcomes were the difference between LVO detection strategies in QALYs (ΔQALY) and costs (ΔCosts) per LVO patient. RESULTS: We included 701 patients (median age: 72, IQR: [62-81]) years). Per LVO patient, CTP-based occlusion detection resulted in cost savings (ΔCosts median: € - 2671, IQR: [€ - 4721; € - 731]), a health gain (ΔQALY median: 0.073, IQR: [0.044; 0.104]), and a positive NMB (median: €8436, IQR: [5565; 11,876]) per LVO patient. CONCLUSION: CTP-based screening of suspected stroke patients for an endovascular treatment eligible large vessel occlusion was cost-effective. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Although CTP-based patient selection for endovascular treatment has been recently suggested to result in worse patient outcomes after ischemic stroke, an alternative CTP-based screening for endovascular treatable occlusions is cost-effective. KEY POINTS: • Using CT perfusion to detect an endovascular treatment-eligible occlusions resulted in a health gain and cost savings during 10 years of follow-up. • Depending on the screening costs related to the number of patients needed to image with CT perfusion, cost savings could be considerable (median: € - 3857, IQR: [€ - 5907; € - 1916] per patient). • As the gain in quality adjusted life years was most affected by the sensitivity of CT perfusion-based occlusion detection, additional studies for the diagnostic accuracy of CT perfusion for occlusion detection are required.

Pitfalls of single-study external validation illustrated with a model predicting functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Prediction models are often externally validated with data from a single study or cohort. However, the interpretation of performance estimates obtained with single-study external validation is not as straightforward as assumed. We aimed to illustrate this by conducting a large number of external validations of a prediction model for functional outcome in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients. METHODS: We used data from the Subarachnoid Hemorrhage International Trialists (SAHIT) data repository (n = 11,931, 14 studies) to refit the SAHIT model for predicting a dichotomous functional outcome (favorable versus unfavorable), with the (extended) Glasgow Outcome Scale or modified Rankin Scale score, at a minimum of three months after discharge. We performed leave-one-cluster-out cross-validation to mimic the process of multiple single-study external validations. Each study represented one cluster. In each of these validations, we assessed discrimination with Harrell's c-statistic and calibration with calibration plots, the intercepts, and the slopes. We used random effects meta-analysis to obtain the (reference) mean performance estimates and between-study heterogeneity (I2-statistic). The influence of case-mix variation on discriminative performance was assessed with the model-based c-statistic and we fitted a "membership model" to obtain a gross estimate of transportability. RESULTS: Across 14 single-study external validations, model performance was highly variable. The mean c-statistic was 0.74 (95%CI 0.70-0.78, range 0.52-0.84, I2 = 0.92), the mean intercept was -0.06 (95%CI -0.37-0.24, range -1.40-0.75, I2 = 0.97), and the mean slope was 0.96 (95%CI 0.78-1.13, range 0.53-1.31, I2 = 0.90). The decrease in discriminative performance was attributable to case-mix variation, between-study heterogeneity, or a combination of both. Incidentally, we observed poor generalizability or transportability of the model. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate two potential pitfalls in the interpretation of model performance with single-study external validation. With single-study external validation. (1) model performance is highly variable and depends on the choice of validation data and (2) no insight is provided into generalizability or transportability of the model that is needed to guide local implementation. As such, a single single-study external validation can easily be misinterpreted and lead to a false appreciation of the clinical prediction model. Cross-validation is better equipped to address these pitfalls.

Personalized decision-making for aneurysm treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: development and validation of a clinical prediction tool.

BACKGROUND: In patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage suitable for endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clip-reconstruction, the aneurysm treatment decision-making process could be improved by considering heterogeneity of treatment effect and durability of treatment. We aimed to develop and validate a tool to predict individualized treatment benefit of endovascular coiling compared to neurosurgical clip-reconstruction. METHODS: We used randomized data (International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial, n = 2143) to develop models to predict 2-month functional outcome and to predict time-to-rebleed-or-retreatment. We modeled for heterogeneity of treatment effect by adding interaction terms of treatment with prespecified predictors and with baseline risk of the outcome. We predicted outcome with both treatments and calculated absolute treatment benefit. We described the patient characteristics of patients with ≥ 5% point difference in the predicted probability of favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Score 0-2) and of no rebleed or retreatment within 10 years. Model performance was expressed with the c-statistic and calibration plots. We performed bootstrapping and leave-one-cluster-out cross-validation and pooled cluster-specific c-statistics with random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: The pooled c-statistics were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.75) for the prediction of 2-month favorable functional outcome and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.63-0.71) for prediction of no rebleed or retreatment within 10 years. We found no significant interaction between predictors and treatment. The average predicted benefit in favorable functional outcome was 6% (95% CI: 3-10%) in favor of coiling, but 11% (95% CI: 9-13%) for no rebleed or retreatment in favor of clip-reconstruction. 134 patients (6%), young and in favorable clinical condition, had negligible functional outcome benefit of coiling but had a ≥ 5% point benefit of clip-reconstruction in terms of durability of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We show that young patients in favorable clinical condition and without extensive vasospasm have a negligible benefit in functional outcome of endovascular coiling - compared to neurosurgical clip-reconstruction - while at the same time having a substantially lower probability of retreatment or rebleeding from neurosurgical clip-reconstruction - compared to endovascular coiling. The SHARP prediction tool ( https://sharpmodels.shinyapps.io/sharpmodels/ ) could support and incentivize a multidisciplinary discussion about aneurysm treatment decision-making by providing individualized treatment benefit estimates.

Time to Treatment With Intravenous Thrombolysis Before Thrombectomy and Functional Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke declines with longer time from symptom onset, but it is not known whether a similar time dependency exists for IVT followed by thrombectomy. Objective: To determine whether the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone decreases with treatment time from symptom onset. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual participant data meta-analysis from 6 randomized clinical trials comparing IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Enrollment was between January 2017 and July 2021 at 190 sites in 15 countries. All participants were eligible for IVT and thrombectomy and presented directly at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers (n = 2334). For this meta-analysis, only patients with an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion were included (n = 2313). Exposure: Interval from stroke symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and treatment with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome analysis tested whether the association between the allocated treatment (IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone) and disability at 90 days (7-level modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]; minimal clinically important difference for the rates of mRS scores of 0-2: 1.3%) varied with times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT. Results: In 2313 participants (1160 in IVT plus thrombectomy group vs 1153 in thrombectomy alone group; median age, 71 [IQR, 62 to 78] years; 44.3% were female), the median time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was 2 hours 28 minutes (IQR, 1 hour 46 minutes to 3 hours 17 minutes). There was a statistically significant interaction between the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and the association of allocated treatment with functional outcomes (ratio of adjusted common odds ratio [OR] per 1-hour delay, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.97], P = .02 for interaction). The benefit of IVT plus thrombectomy decreased with longer times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT (adjusted common OR for a 1-step mRS score shift toward improvement, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.96] at 1 hour, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.49] at 2 hours, and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.23] at 3 hours). For a mRS score of 0, 1, or 2, the predicted absolute risk difference was 9% (95% CI, 3% to 16%) at 1 hour, 5% (95% CI, 1% to 9%) at 2 hours, and 1% (95% CI, -3% to 5%) at 3 hours. After 2 hours 20 minutes, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy was not statistically significant and the point estimate crossed the null association at 3 hours 14 minutes. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients presenting at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone was time dependent and statistically significant only if the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was short.

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.

International Validation of the Erasmus Guillain-Barré Syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the Erasmus Guillain-Barré Syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score in the International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study cohort, and to improve its performance and region-specificity. METHODS: We examined data from the first 1,500 included patients, aged ≥6 years and not ventilated prior to study entry. Patients with a clinical variant or mild symptoms were also included. Outcome was mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Model performance was assessed regarding the discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and the calibration (observed vs predicted probability of mechanical ventilation), in the full cohort and in Europe/North America and Asia separately. We recalibrated the model to improve its performance and region-specificity. RESULTS: In the group of 1,023 eligible patients (Europe/North America n = 842, Asia n = 104, other n = 77), 104 (10%) required mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Area under the curve values were ≥0.80 for all validation subgroups. Mean observed proportions of mechanical ventilation were lower than predicted risks: full cohort 10% versus 21%, Europe/North America 9% versus 21%, and Asia 17% versus 23%. After recalibration, predicted risks for the full cohort and Europe/North America corresponded to observed proportions. INTERPRETATION: This prospective, international cohort study validated the Erasmus Guillain-Barré Syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score, and showed that the model can be used in the full spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome patients. In addition, a more accurate, region-specific version of the model was developed for patients from Europe/North America. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:521-531.

Modified Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score: a simplified clinical tool to predict the risk of mechanical ventilation in Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the clinical and diagnostic factors associated with mechanical ventilation (MV) in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and to simplify the existing Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score (EGRIS) for predicting the risk of MV. METHODS: Data from the first 1500 patients included in the prospective International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) were used. Patients were included across five continents. Patients <6 years and patients from Bangladesh were excluded. Univariable logistic and multivariable Cox regression were used to determine which prespecified clinical and diagnostic characteristics were associated with MV and to predict the risk of MV at multiple time points during disease course. RESULTS: 1133 (76%) patients met the study criteria. Independent predictors of MV were a shorter time from onset of weakness until admission, the presence of bulbar palsy and weakness of neck flexion and hip flexion. The modified EGRIS (mEGRIS) was based on these factors and accurately predicts the risk of MV with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 (0.80-0.88). We internally validated the model within the full IGOS cohort and within separate regional subgroups, which showed AUC values of 0.83 (0.81-0.88) and 0.85 (0.72-0.98), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The mEGRIS is a simple and accurate tool for predicting the risk of MV in GBS. Compared with the original model, the mEGRIS requires less information for predictions with equal accuracy, can be used to predict MV at multiple time points and is also applicable in less severely affected patients and GBS variants. Model performance was consistent across different regions.

Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input.

OBJECTIVES: A previously developed decision model to prioritize surgical procedures in times of scarce surgical capacity used quality of life (QoL) primarily derived from experts in one center. These estimates are key input of the model, and might be more context-dependent than the other input parameters (age, survival). The aim of this study was to validate our model by replicating these QoL estimates. METHODS: The original study estimated QoL of patients in need of commonly performed procedures in live expert-panel meetings. This study replicated this procedure using a web-based Delphi approach in a different hospital. The new QoL scores were compared with the original scores using mixed effects linear regression. The ranking of surgical procedures based on combined QoL values from the validation and original study was compared to the ranking based solely on the original QoL values. RESULTS: The overall mean difference in QoL estimates between the validation study and the original study was - 0.11 (95% CI: -0.12 - -0.10). The model output (DALY/month delay) based on QoL data from both studies was similar to the model output based on the original data only: The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the ranking of all procedures before and after including the new QoL estimates was 0.988. DISCUSSION: Even though the new QoL estimates were systematically lower than the values from the original study, the ranking for urgency based on health loss per unit of time delay of procedures was consistent. This underscores the robustness and generalizability of the decision model for prioritization of surgical procedures.

Prehospital Stroke Triage: A Modeling Study on the Impact of Triage Tools in Different Regions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Direct transportation to a thrombectomy-capable intervention center is beneficial for patients with ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO), but can delay intravenous thrombolytics (IVT). The aim of this modeling study was to estimate the effect of prehospital triage strategies on treatment delays and overtriage in different regions. METHODS: We used data from two prospective cohort studies in the Netherlands: the Leiden Prehospital Stroke Study and the PRESTO study. We included stroke code patients within 6 h from symptom onset. We modeled outcomes of Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE) scale triage and triage with a personalized decision tool, using drip-and-ship as reference. Main outcomes were overtriage (stroke code patients incorrectly triaged to an intervention center), reduced delay to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), and delay to IVT. RESULTS: We included 1798 stroke code patients from four ambulance regions. Per region, overtriage ranged from 1-13% (RACE triage) and 3-15% (personalized tool). Reduction of delay to EVT varied by region between 24 ± 5 min (n = 6) to 78 ± 3 (n = 2), while IVT delay increased with 5 (n = 5) to 15 min (n = 21) for non-LVO patients. The personalized tool reduced delay to EVT for more patients (25 ± 4 min [n = 8] to 49 ± 13 [n = 5]), while delaying IVT with 3-14 min (8-24 patients). In region C, most EVT patients were treated faster (reduction of delay to EVT 31 ± 6 min (n = 35), with RACE triage and the personalized tool. CONCLUSIONS: In this modeling study, we showed that prehospital triage reduced time to EVT without disproportionate IVT delay, compared to a drip-and-ship strategy. The effect of triage strategies and the associated overtriage varied between regions. Implementation of prehospital triage should therefore be considered on a regional level.

Standardized mortality ratios for regionalized acute cardiovascular care.

BACKGROUND: Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs) are case-mix adjusted mortality rates per hospital and are used to evaluate quality of care. However, acute care is increasingly organized on a regional level, with more severe patients admitted to specialized hospitals. We hypothesize that the current case-mix adjustment insufficiently captures differences in case-mix between non-specialized and specialized hospitals. We aim to improve the SMR by adding proxies of disease severity to the model and by calculating a regional SMR (RSMR) for acute cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: We used data from the Dutch National Basic Registration of Hospital Care. We selected all admissions from 2016 to 2018. SMRs and RSMRs were calculated by dividing the observed in-hospital mortality by the expected in-hospital mortality. The expected in-hospital mortality was calculated using logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic status, severity of main diagnosis, urgency of admission, Charlson comorbidity index, place of residence before admission, month/year of admission, and in-hospital mortality as outcome. RESULTS: The IQR of hospital SMRs of CVD was 0.85-1.10, median 0.94, with higher SMRs for specialized hospitals (median 1.12, IQR 1.00-1.28, 71%-SMR > 1) than for non-specialized hospitals (median 0.92, IQR 0.82-1.07, 32%-SMR > 1). The IQR of RSMRs was 0.92-1.09, median 1.00. The IQR of hospital SMRs of MI was 0.76-1.14, median 0.98, with higher SMRs for specialized hospitals (median 1.00, IQR 0.89-1.25, 50%-SMR > 1 versus median 0.94, IQR 0.74-1.11, 44%-SMR > 1). The IQR of RSMRs was 0.90-1.08, median 1.00. Adjustment for proxies of disease severity mostly led to lower SMRs of specialized hospitals. CONCLUSION: SMRs of acute regionally organized diseases do not only measure differences in quality of care between hospitals, but merely measure differences in case-mix between hospitals. Although the addition of proxies of disease severity improves the model to calculate SMRs, real disease severity scores would be preferred. However, such scores are not available in administrative data. As a consequence, the usefulness of the current SMR as quality indicator is very limited. RSMRs are potentially more useful, since they fit regional organization and might be a more valid representation of quality of care.

The cognitive status of chronic subdural hematoma patients after treatment: an exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a common neurological condition, often affecting the elderly. Cognitive impairment is frequently observed at presentation. However, the course and longer term aspects of the cognitive status of CSDH patients are unknown. In this study, we aim to explore the cognitive status of CSDH patients after treatment. METHODS: An exploratory study in which CSDH patients were assessed 3 months after treatment and compared to healthy controls. A total of 56 CSDH patients (age 72.1 SD ± 10.8 years with 43 [77%] males) and 60 healthy controls were included (age 67.5 ± SD 4.8 with 34 [57%] males). Cognitive testing was performed using the Telephonic Interview of Cognitive Status-modified (TICS-m), a 12-item questionnaire in which a total of 50 points can be obtained on several cognitive domains. RESULTS: Median time between treatment and cognitive testing was 93 days (range 76-139). TICS-m scores of CSDH patients were significantly lower than healthy controls, after adjusting for age and sex: mean score 34.6 (95% CI: 33.6-35.9) vs. 39.6 (95% CI: 38.5-40.7), p value < 0.001. More than half (54%) of CSDH patients have cognitive scores at follow-up that correspond with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: A large number of CSDH patients show significantly worse cognitive status 3 months after treatment compared to healthy controls. This finding underlines the importance of increased awareness for impaired cognition after CSDH. Further research on this topic is warranted.

Early surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral hematoma: a CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: Evidence regarding the effect of surgery in traumatic intracerebral hematoma (t-ICH) is limited and relies on the STITCH(Trauma) trial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of early surgery to conservative treatment in patients with a t-ICH. METHODS: In a prospective cohort, we included patients with a large t-ICH (< 48 h of injury). Primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) at 6 months, analyzed with multivariable proportional odds logistic regression. Subgroups included injury severity and isolated vs. non-isolated t-ICH. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients with a large t-ICH were included, of whom 160 received early surgery and 207 received conservative treatment. Patients receiving early surgery were younger (median age 54 vs. 58 years) and more severely injured (median Glasgow Coma Scale 7 vs. 10) compared to those treated conservatively. In the overall cohort, early surgery was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.1, (95% CI, 0.6-1.7)) compared to conservative treatment. Early surgery was associated with better outcome for patients with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH (AOR 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.0); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.5); P value for interaction 0.004). Conversely, in mild TBI and those with a smaller t-ICH (< 33 cc), conservative treatment was associated with better outcome (AOR 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4-0.9); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0); P value for interaction 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Early surgery in t-ICH might benefit those with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH, comparable with results of the STITCH(Trauma) trial.

Infarct volume after ischemic stroke as a mediator of the effect of endovascular thrombectomy on early postprocedural neurologic deficit.

OBJECTIVES: The beneficial effect of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) on clinical outcome is assumed to be caused by reduced follow-up infarct volume (FIV), which could serve as an early imaging endpoint. However, the effect of EVT on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was poorly explained by FIV. NIHSS at 5-7 days could be a more specific measure of the effect of reperfusion therapy, as opposed to the mRS at 3 months. Therefore, we aimed to assess to what extent the effect of EVT on NIHSS is explained by FIV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands; n = 500) trial to evaluate the mediating role of FIV within 1 week in the relationship between EVT and baseline adjusted NIHSS at 5-7 days. RESULTS: Larger FIVs were associated with higher NIHSS after treatment (adjusted beta-coefficient (aß) 0.47;95%CI 0.39-0.55). EVT was associated with smaller FIVs (ß -0.35;95%CI-0.64 to -0.06) and lower NIHSS (ß -0.63;95%CI-0.90 to -0.35). After adjustment for FIV, the effect of EVT on NIHSS decreased (aß -0.47;95%CI-0.72 to -0.23), indicating that effect of EVT on neurologic deficit is partially mediated by FIV. Reduction of FIV explained 34% (95%CI;5%-93%) of the effect of EVT on the NIHSS at 5-7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Larger FIV was significantly associated with larger neurological deficits after treatment. Reduced infarct volume after EVT explains one third of treatment benefit in terms of neurological deficit. This suggests that FIV is of interest as an imaging biomarker of stroke treatment effect.

Outcome Prediction Models for Endovascular Treatment of Ischemic Stroke: Systematic Review and External Validation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prediction models for outcome of patients with acute ischemic stroke who will undergo endovascular treatment have been developed to improve patient management. The aim of the current study is to provide an overview of preintervention models for functional outcome after endovascular treatment and to validate these models with data from daily clinical practice. METHODS: We systematically searched within Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, to include prediction models. Models identified from the search were validated in the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) registry, which includes all patients treated with endovascular treatment within 6.5 hours after stroke onset in the Netherlands between March 2014 and November 2017. Predictive performance was evaluated according to discrimination (area under the curve) and calibration (slope and intercept of the calibration curve). Good functional outcome was defined as a score of 0-2 or 0-3 on the modified Rankin Scale depending on the model. RESULTS: After screening 3468 publications, 19 models were included in this validation. Variables included in the models mainly addressed clinical and imaging characteristics at baseline. In the validation cohort of 3156 patients, discriminative performance ranged from 0.61 (SPAN-100 [Stroke Prognostication Using Age and NIH Stroke Scale]) to 0.80 (MR PREDICTS). Best-calibrated models were THRIVE (The Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events; intercept -0.06 [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.02]; slope 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75-0.95]), THRIVE-c (intercept 0.08 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.17]; slope 0.71 [95% CI, 0.65-0.77]), Stroke Checkerboard score (intercept -0.05 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.03]; slope 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88-1.08]), and MR PREDICTS (intercept 0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.52]; slope 0.93 [95% CI, 0.85-1.01]). CONCLUSIONS: The THRIVE-c score and MR PREDICTS both showed a good combination of discrimination and calibration and were, therefore, superior in predicting functional outcome for patients with ischemic stroke after endovascular treatment within 6.5 hours. Since models used different predictors and several models had relatively good predictive performance, the decision on which model to use in practice may also depend on simplicity of the model, data availability, and the comparability of the population and setting.

Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Blinded outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design is challenging. Unblinding can result in misclassified outcomes and biased treatment effect estimates. An outcome adjudication committee assures blinded outcome assessment, but the added value for trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design and subjective outcomes is unknown. We aimed to assess the degree of misclassification of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores by a central assessor and its impact on treatment effect estimates in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design. METHODS: We used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). The primary outcome was the mRS at 90 days. Standardized, algorithm-based telephone interviews to assess the mRS were conducted from a central location by an experienced research nurse, unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation (central assessor). Masked reports of these interviews were adjudicated by a blinded outcome committee. Misclassification was defined as an incorrect classification of the mRS by the central assessor. The effect of endovascular treatment on the mRS was assessed with multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: In MR CLEAN, 53/500 (10.6%) of the mRS scores were misclassified. The degree and direction of misclassification did not differ between treatment arms (P=0.59). Benefit of endovascular treatment was shown on the mRS when scored by the central assessor (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16-2.21]) and the outcome adjudication committee (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.21-2.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Misclassification by the central assessor was small, randomly distributed over treatment arms, and did not affect treatment effect estimates. This study suggests that the added value of a blinded outcome adjudication committee is limited in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design applying standardized, algorithm-based outcome assessment by a central assessor, who is unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation. Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Economic Evaluation of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke has been proven clinically effective, but evidence of the cost-effectiveness based on real-world data is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess whether endovascular therapy plus usual care is cost-effective in comparison to usual care alone in acute ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Empirical data on health outcomes and the use of resources following endovascular treatment were gathered parallel to the MR CLEAN trial (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) and its 2-year follow-up study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the extra costs per additional patient with functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) and the extra cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. RESULTS: The mean costs per patient in the intervention group were $126 494 versus $143 331 in the control group (mean difference, -$16 839 [95% CI, -$38 113 to $5456]). Compared with patients in the control group, more patients in the intervention group achieved functional independence, 37.2% versus 23.9% (absolute difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 4.0%-22.0%]) and they generated more quality-adjusted life years, 0.99 versus 0.83 (mean difference of 0.16 [95% CI, 0.04-0.29]). Endovascular treatment dominated standard treatment with $18 233 saved per extra patient with a good outcome and $105 869 saved per additional quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment added to usual care is clinically effective, and cost saving in comparison to usual care alone in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Registration: URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/695; Unique identifier: NL695. URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.