Endovascular thrombectomy and medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in acute stroke: A randomized care trial.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, the benefits of endovascular treatment in stroke were not proven. Care trials have been designed to simultaneously offer yet-to-be validated interventions and verify treatment outcomes. Our aim was to implement a care trial for patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: The study was offered to all patients considered for endovascular management of acute ischemic stroke in one Canadian hospital. Inclusion criteria were broad: onset of symptoms≤5h or at any time in the presence of clinical-imaging mismatch and suspected or demonstrated proximal large vessel occlusion. Exclusion criteria were few: established infarction or hemorrhagic transformation of the target symptomatic territory and poor 3-month prognosis. The primary outcome was mRS≤2 at 3 months. Patients were randomly allocated to standard care or standard care plus endovascular treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT02157532. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were recruited in 19 months (March 2013-October 2014) at a single center. Randomized allocation was interrupted when other trials showed the benefits of endovascular therapy. At 3 months, 20 of 40 patients (50.0%; 95% CI: 35%-65%) in the intervention group had reached the primary outcome, compared to 14 of 37 patients (37.8%; 95% CI: 24%-54%) in the control group (P=0.36). Eleven patients in the intervention group died within 3 months compared to 9 patients in the standard care group. CONCLUSION: A care trial was implemented to offer verifiable care to acute stroke patients. This approach offers a promising means to manage clinical dilemmas and guide uncertain practices.

Early CT changes in patients admitted for thrombectomy: Intrarater and interrater agreement.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and assess agreement on the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) among clinicians involved in the management of thrombectomy candidates. METHODS: Studies assessing agreement using ASPECTS published from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed. Fifteen raters reviewed and scored the anonymized CT scans of 30 patients recruited in a local thrombectomy trial during 2 independent sessions, in order to study intrarater and interrater agreement. Agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Fleiss kappa statistics for ASPECTS and dichotomized ASPECTS at various cutoff values. RESULTS: The review yielded 30 articles reporting 40 measures of agreement. Populations, methods, analyses, and results were heterogeneous (slight to excellent agreement), precluding a meta-analysis. When analyzed as a categorical variable, intrarater agreement was slight to moderate (κ = 0.042-0.469); it reached a substantial level (κ > 0.6) in 11/15 raters when the score was dichotomized (0-5 vs 6-10). The interrater ICCs varied between 0.672 and 0.811, but agreement was slight to moderate (κ = 0.129-0.315). Even in the best of cases, when ASPECTS was dichotomized as 0-5 vs 6-10, interrater agreement did not reach a substantial level (κ = 0.561), which translates into at least 5 of 15 raters not giving the same dichotomized verdict in 15% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients considered for thrombectomy, there may be insufficient agreement between clinicians for ASPECTS to be reliably used as a criterion for treatment decisions.