ABSTRACT
Background@#and Purpose This study aimed to investigate the effect of endovascular treatment (EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis [IVT]) versus IVT alone on outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO) attributable to cervical artery dissection (CeAD). @*Methods@#This multinational cohort study was conducted based on prospectively collected data from the EVA-TRISP (EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients) collaboration. Consecutive patients (2015–2019) with AIS-LVO attributable to CeAD treated with EVT and/or IVT were included. Primary outcome measures were (1) favorable 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) and (2) complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale 2b/3). Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models were calculated (unadjusted, adjusted). Secondary analyses were performed in the patients with LVO in the anterior circulation (LVOant) including propensity score matching. @*Results@#Among 290 patients, 222 (76.6%) had EVT and 68 (23.4%) IVT alone. EVT-treated patients had more severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, median [interquartile range]: 14 [10–19] vs. 4 [2–7], P<0.001). The frequency of favorable 3-month outcome did not differ significantly between both groups (EVT: 64.0% vs. IVT: 86.8%; ORadjusted 0.56 [0.24–1.32]). EVT was associated with higher rates of recanalization (80.5% vs. 40.7%; ORadjusted 8.85 [4.28–18.29]) compared to IVT. All secondary analyses showed higher recanalization rates in the EVT-group, which however never translated into better functional outcome rates compared to the IVT-group. @*Conclusion@#We observed no signal of superiority of EVT over IVT regarding functional outcome in CeAD-patients with AIS and LVO despite higher rates of complete recanalization with EVT. Whether pathophysiological CeAD-characteristics or their younger age might explain this observation deserves further research.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Standard operating procedures (SOP) incorporating plasma levels of rivaroxaban might be helpful in selecting patients with acute ischemic stroke taking rivaroxaban suitable for IVthrombolysis (IVT) or endovascular treatment (EVT). METHODS: This was a single-center explorative analysis using data from the Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-in-Stroke-Patients-registry (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT02353585) including acute stroke patients taking rivaroxaban (September 2012 to November 2016). The SOP included recommendation, consideration, and avoidance of IVT if rivaroxaban plasma levels were 100 ng/mL, respectively, measured with a calibrated anti-factor Xa assay. Patients with intracranial artery occlusion were recommended IVT+EVT or EVT alone if plasma levels were ≤100 ng/mL or >100 ng/mL, respectively. We evaluated the frequency of IVT/EVT, door-to-needle-time (DNT), and symptomatic intracranial or major extracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: Among 114 acute stroke patients taking rivaroxaban, 68 were otherwise eligible for IVT/EVT of whom 63 had plasma levels measured (median age 81 years, median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 6). Median rivaroxaban plasma level was 96 ng/mL (inter quartile range [IQR] 18‒259 ng/mL) and time since last intake 11 hours (IQR 4.5‒18.5 hours). Twenty-two patients (35%) received IVT/EVT (IVT n=15, IVT+EVT n=3, EVT n=4) based on SOP. Median DNT was 37 (IQR 30‒60) minutes. None of the 31 patients with plasma levels >100 ng/mL received IVT. Among 14 patients with plasma levels ≤100 ng/mL, the main reason to withhold IVT was minor stroke (n=10). No symptomatic intracranial or major extracranial bleeding occurred after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of rivaroxaban plasma levels enabled IVT or EVT in one-third of patients taking rivaroxaban who would otherwise be ineligible for acute treatment. The absence of major bleeding in our pilot series justifies future studies of this approach.