Outcome of Stroke Patients with Unknown Onset and Unknown Time Last Known Well Undergoing Endovascular Therapy.

PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment (ET) in patients with large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS) with unknown onset or an extended time window can be safe and effective if patients are selected by defined clinical and imaging criteria; however, it is unclear if these criteria should also be applied to patients with unknown onset and unknown time last known well. In this study, we aimed to assess whether absent information on the time patients were last known to be well impacts outcome in patients with unknown onset LVOS. METHODS: We analyzed patients who were enrolled in the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment between 2015 and 2019. Patients with unknown onset and unknown time last known well (LKWu) were compared to patients with known onset (KO) and to patients with unknown onset but known time last known well (LKWk) regarding clinical and imaging baseline characteristics and outcome. RESULTS: Out of 5909 patients, 561 presented with LKWu (9.5%), 1849 with LKWk (31.3%) and 3499 with KO (59.2%). At 90 days, functional independency was less frequent in LKWu (27.0%) compared to KO (42.6%) and LKWk patients (31.8%). These differences were not significant after adjusting for confounders. A main confounder was the initial Alberta stroke program early CT score. CONCLUSION: The LKWu patients had a similar outcome after ET as KO and LKWk patients after adjusting for confounders. Thus, ET should not be withheld if the time last known well is unknown. Instead, LKWu patients may be selected for ET using the same criteria as in LKWk patients.

Late Thrombectomy in Clinical Practice : Retrospective Application of DAWN/DEFUSE3 Criteria within the German Stroke Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To provide real-world data on outcome and procedural factors of late thrombectomy patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients from the multicenter German Stroke Registry. The primary endpoint was clinical outcome on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 3 months. Trial-eligible patients and the subgroups were compared to the ineligible group. Secondary analyses included multivariate logistic regression to identify predictors of good outcome (mRS ≤ 2). RESULTS: Of 1917 patients who underwent thrombectomy, 208 (11%) were treated within a time window ≥ 6-24 h and met the baseline trial criteria. Of these, 27 patients (13%) were eligible for DAWN and 39 (19%) for DEFUSE3 and 156 patients were not eligible for DAWN or DEFUSE3 (75%), mainly because there was no perfusion imaging (62%; n = 129). Good outcome was not significantly higher in trial-ineligible (27%) than in trial-eligible (20%) patients (p = 0.343). Patients with large trial-ineligible CT perfusion imaging (CTP) lesions had significantly more hemorrhagic complications (33%) as well as unfavorable outcomes. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, the high number of patients with a good clinical outcome after endovascular therapy ≥ 6-24 h as in DAWN/DEFUSE3 could not be achieved. Similar outcomes are seen in patients selected for EVT ≥ 6 h based on factors other than CTP. Patients triaged without CTP showed trends for shorter arrival to reperfusion times and higher rates of independence.