• Joseph P Broderick, Yuko Y Palesch, Andrew M Demchuk, Sharon D Yeatts, Pooja Khatri, Michael D Hill, Edward C Jauch, Tudor G Jovin, Bernard Yan, Rüdiger von Kummer, Carlos A Molina, Mayank Goyal, Mikael Mazighi, Wouter J Schonewille, Stefan T Engelter, Craig Anderson, Judith Spilker, Janice Carrozzella, L Scott Janis, Lydia D Foster, Thomas A Tomsick, and Interventional Management of Stroke III Investigators.
• From the Departments of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine and Radiology, University of Cincinnati Neuroscience Institute, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center, Cincinnati (J.P.B., P.K., J.S., J.C., T.A.T.); Department of Public Health Sciences (Y.Y.P, S.D.Y., L.D.F.) and the Division of Emergency Medicine (E.C.J.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Calgary Stroke Program, Seaman Family MR Research Centre, Departments of Clinical Neurosciences and Radiology, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada (A.M.D., M.D.H., M.G.); Stroke Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (T.G.J.); Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (B.Y.); Department of Neuroradiology, Dresden University Stroke Center, University Hospital, Dresden, Germany (R.v.K.); Neurovascular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona (C.A.M.); Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Utrecht and the Rudolph Magnus Institute of Neurosciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands, and the St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands (W.J.S.); Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris (M.M.); Department of Neurology, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland (S.T.E.); George Institute for Global Health, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney (C.A.); and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (L.S.J.). joseph.broderick@uc.edu.
• Stroke. 2014 Dec 1;45(12):3606-11.

Background And PurposeWe explored changes in the patient population and practice of endovascular therapy during the course of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III Trial.MethodsChanges in baseline characteristics, use of baseline CT angiography, treatment times and specifics, and outcomes were compared between the first 4 protocols and the fifth and final protocol.ResultsCompared with subjects treated in the first 4 protocol versions (n=610), subjects treated in fifth and final protocol (n=46) were older (75 versus 68 years, P<0.0002) and less likely to have a pretreatment Rankin of 0 (76% versus 89%, P=0.01), were more likely to have a pretreatment CT angiography (65% versus 45%, P=0.009), had quicker median times in the endovascular arm from onset to start of intra-arterial therapy (209 versus 250 minutes, P=0.002) and to reperfusion (269 versus 344 minutes, P<0.0001), had a higher mean dose of total tissue-type plasminogen activator in the endovascular arm (74.0 versus 63.7 mg, P<0.0001), and were less likely to receive intra-arterial tissue-type plasminogen activator as part of the endovascular procedure (16% versus 44%, P=0.015). There were no significant differences in functional and safety outcomes between subjects treated in the 2 treatments arms in either the first 4 protocols or fifth protocol although the small sample size in the fifth protocol provided limited power.ConclusionsEndovascular technology and diagnostic approaches to acute stroke patients changed substantially during the IMS III Trial. Efforts to decrease the time to delivery of endovascular therapy were successful.© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.

29 keywords...

hide…