Outcomes following thrombectomy for acute large vessel occlusion beyond 24 hours or with unknown time of onset.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is recommended in medically eligible patients with large vessel occlusions (LVO) within 24 hours of symptom onset. While there is evidence that EVT ≥24h after last known well (LKW) is associated with favorable outcomes in patients who meet DAWN/DEFUSE-3 criteria, it is unknown if more liberal criteria can be applied. METHODS: A single center, prospective observational cohort of consecutive adult stroke patients was queried for symptomatic occlusions of the internal carotid (ICA) or proximal middle cerebral (M1) arteries (October 2019-January 2022), with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥6, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2, and Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scale score 3-10. These inclusion criteria were extrapolated from recently published data indicating a benefit with EVT with more liberal patient selection. Patients who underwent EVT ≥24h after LKW were compared against those treated medically. The primary outcome was a good functional outcome (90-day mRS 0-2), which was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 27 included patients, the median age was 65y (IQR 49-76) with a median NIHSS of 15 (IQR 8-26), and 17 (63.0%) underwent EVT (median LKW-to-puncture 35.5h (IQR 26.9-65.8h). The primary outcome was no different with EVT in unadjusted regression (OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.17-8.09), and there remained no association across all multivariable models tested. Age, pre-stroke disability, and M1 occlusions were non-significantly associated with the primary outcome (p>0.05). There was a non-significant trend indicating a favorable shift in 90-day mRS with EVT (proportional OR 2.04, 95%CI 0.44-9.48). CONCLUSIONS: Using more liberal inclusion criteria for EVT in the ultra-extended window, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of good functional outcome with EVT. Larger studies are called upon to evaluate outcomes when more liberal criteria are used to assess thrombectomy eligibility.

Embolic infarct topology differs between atrial fibrillation subtypes and embolic stroke of undetermined source.

BACKGROUND: The lack of superiority of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) may be in part due to the misclassification of radiographic ESUS patterns as cardioembolic. In this imaging analysis, we sought to differentiate clinical and radiographic patterns of ESUS patients from patterns in patients with a highly probable cardioembolic source. MATERIALS & METHODS: A prospective registry of consecutive adults with acute infarction on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was queried. Patients with infarctions due to small vessel disease, large vessel disease, and other causes were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of two potentially embolic patterns: (1) multifocal and (2) cortical lesions, comparing patients with ESUS against those with atrial fibrillation (AF). RESULTS: Among 1243 screened patients, 343 (27.6%) experienced strokes due to ESUS or AF. Prior to the index stroke, patients with AF as compared to ESUS were older (median 75 vs. 65, p<0.01) and had more heart failure (25.9% vs. 8.4%, p<0.01). The odds of multifocal infarction were the same between patients with ESUS and both AF subtypes (p>0.05), however, cortical involvement was more associated with both AF versus ESUS (77.7% vs. 65.7%, P=0.02). A higher Fazekas grade of white matter disease was inversely associated with cortical infarction among included patients (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.96). CONCLUSION: Cortical infarctions were twice as common among patients with AF versus ESUS. Subcortical infarct topography was strongly associated with chronic microvascular ischemic changes and therefore may not represent embolic phenomena. Larger-scale investigations are warranted to discern whether large or multifocal subcortical infarcts ought to be excluded from the ESUS designation.

Outcomes associated with antithrombotic strategies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm following acute ischemic stroke.

Purpose: Insufficient data exist regarding the benefit of long-term antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant therapy in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with ischemic stroke and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Therefore, this study aimed to compare longitudinal outcomes associated with antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant use in a cohort of patients with stroke and with an ejection fraction of ≤40%. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed single-center registry data (2015-2021) of patients with ischemic stroke, HFrEF, and sinus rhythm. Time to the primary outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and was compared between patients treated using anticoagulation (±antiplatelet) vs. antiplatelet therapy alone after propensity score matching using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, with adjustment for residual measurable confounders. Sensitivity analyses included the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model using ITT and as-treated approaches without propensity score matching. Results: Of 2,974 screened patients, 217 were included in the secondary analyses, with 130 patients matched according to the propensity score for receiving anticoagulation treatment for the primary analysis, spanning 143 patient-years of follow-up. After propensity score matching, there was no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-2.17]. Non-White race (HR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.16-4.41) and the presence of intracranial occlusion (HR 2.86, 95% CI: 1.40-5.83) were independently associated with the primary outcome, while hypertension was inversely associated (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.84). There remained no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: In HFrEF patients with an acute stroke, there was no difference in outcomes of antithrombotic strategies. While this study was limited by non-randomized treatment allocation, the results support future trials of stroke patients with HFrEF which may randomize patients to anticoagulation or antiplatelet.