• Amrou Sarraj, Ameer E Hassan, Michael G Abraham, Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez, Scott E Kasner, Muhammad Shazam Hussain, Michael Chen, Leonid Churilov, Hannah Johns, Clark W Sitton, Vignan Yogendrakumar, Felix C Ng, Deep K Pujara, Spiros Blackburn, Sophia Sundararajan, Yin C Hu, Nabeel A Herial, Juan F Arenillas, Jenny P Tsai, Ronald F Budzik, William J Hicks, Osman Kozak, Bernard Yan, Dennis J Cordato, Nathan W Manning, Mark W Parsons, Andrew Cheung, Ricardo A Hanel, Amin N Aghaebrahim, Teddy Y Wu, Pere Cardona Portela, Chirag D Gandhi, Fawaz Al-Mufti, Natalia Pérez de la Ossa, Joanna D Schaafsma, Jordi Blasco, Navdeep Sangha, Steven Warach, Timothy J Kleinig, Faris Shaker, Faisal Al Shaibi, Gabor Toth, Mohammad A Abdulrazzak, Gagan Sharma, Abhishek Ray, Jeffrey Sunshine, Amanda Opaskar, Kelsey R Duncan, Wei Xiong, Edgar A Samaniego, Laith Maali, Colleen G Lechtenberg, Arturo Renú, Nirav Vora, Thanh Nguyen, Johanna T Fifi, Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris, Pascal Jabbour, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Vitor Mendes Pereira, Maarten G Lansberg, Michael DeGeorgia, Cathy A Sila, Nicholas Bambakidis, Michael D Hill, Stephen M Davis, Lawrence Wechsler, James C Grotta, Marc Ribo, Greg W Albers, Bruce C Campbell, and SELECT2 Investigators.
• University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center-Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
• JAMA. 2024 Mar 5; 331 (9): 750763750-763.

ImportanceWhether endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) efficacy for patients with acute ischemic stroke and large cores varies depending on the extent of ischemic injury is uncertain.ObjectiveTo describe the relationship between imaging estimates of irreversibly injured brain (core) and at-risk regions (mismatch) and clinical outcomes and EVT treatment effect.Design, Setting, And ParticipantsAn exploratory analysis of the SELECT2 trial, which randomized 352 adults (18-85 years) with acute ischemic stroke due to occlusion of the internal carotid or middle cerebral artery (M1 segment) and large ischemic core to EVT vs medical management (MM), across 31 global centers between October 2019 and September 2022.InterventionEVT vs MM.Main Outcomes And MeasuresPrimary outcome was functional outcome-90-day mRS score (0, no symptoms, to 6, death) assessed by adjusted generalized OR (aGenOR; values >1 represent more favorable outcomes). Benefit of EVT vs MM was assessed across levels of ischemic injury defined by noncontrast CT using ASPECTS score and by the volume of brain with severely reduced blood flow on CT perfusion or restricted diffusion on MRI.ResultsAmong 352 patients randomized, 336 were analyzed (median age, 67 years; 139 [41.4%] female); of these, 168 (50%) were randomized to EVT, and 2 additional crossover MM patients received EVT. In an ordinal analysis of mRS at 90 days, EVT improved functional outcomes compared with MM within ASPECTS categories of 3 (aGenOR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.04-2.81]), 4 (aGenOR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.19-3.40]), and 5 (aGenOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.22-2.79]). Across strata for CT perfusion/MRI ischemic core volumes, aGenOR for EVT vs MM was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.23-2.16) for volumes ≥70 mL, 1.41 (95% CI, 0.99-2.02) for ≥100 mL, and 1.47 (95% CI, 0.84-2.56) for ≥150 mL. In the EVT group, outcomes worsened as ASPECTS decreased (aGenOR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.00] per 1-point decrease) and as CT perfusion/MRI ischemic core volume increased (aGenOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.95] per 10-mL increase). No heterogeneity of EVT treatment effect was observed with or without mismatch, although few patients without mismatch were enrolled.Conclusion And RelevanceIn this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial of patients with extensive ischemic stroke, EVT improved clinical outcomes across a wide spectrum of infarct volumes, although enrollment of patients with minimal penumbra volume was low. In EVT-treated patients, clinical outcomes worsened as presenting ischemic injury estimates increased.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03876457.

23 keywords...

hide…