Recanalization Therapies for Large Vessel Occlusion Due to Cervical Artery Dissection: A Cohort Study of the EVA-TRISP Collaboration
- Author:
Christopher TRAENKA
1
;
Johannes LORSCHEIDER
;
Christian HAMETNER
;
Philipp BAUMGARTNER
;
Jan GRALLA
;
Mauro MAGONI
;
Nicolas MARTINEZ-MAJANDER
;
Barbara CASOLLA
;
Katharina FEIL
;
Rosario PASCARELLA
;
Panagiotis PAPANAGIOTOU
;
Annika NORDANSTIG
;
Visnja PADJEN
;
Carlo W. CEREDA
;
Marios PSYCHOGIOS
;
Christian H. NOLTE
;
Andrea ZINI
;
Patrik MICHEL
;
Yannick BÉJOT
;
Andreas KASTRUP
;
Marialuisa ZEDDE
;
Georg KÄGI
;
Lars KELLERT
;
Hilde HENON
;
Sami CURTZE
;
Alessandro PEZZINI
;
Marcel ARNOLD
;
Susanne WEGENER
;
Peter RINGLEB
;
Turgut TATLISUMAK
;
Paul J. NEDERKOORN
;
Stefan T. ENGELTER
;
Henrik GENSICKE
;
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Journal of Stroke 2023;25(2):272-281
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:and Purpose This study aimed to investigate the effect of endovascular treatment (EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis [IVT]) versus IVT alone on outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO) attributable to cervical artery dissection (CeAD).
Methods:This multinational cohort study was conducted based on prospectively collected data from the EVA-TRISP (EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients) collaboration. Consecutive patients (2015–2019) with AIS-LVO attributable to CeAD treated with EVT and/or IVT were included. Primary outcome measures were (1) favorable 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) and (2) complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale 2b/3). Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models were calculated (unadjusted, adjusted). Secondary analyses were performed in the patients with LVO in the anterior circulation (LVOant) including propensity score matching.
Results:Among 290 patients, 222 (76.6%) had EVT and 68 (23.4%) IVT alone. EVT-treated patients had more severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, median [interquartile range]: 14 [10–19] vs. 4 [2–7], P<0.001). The frequency of favorable 3-month outcome did not differ significantly between both groups (EVT: 64.0% vs. IVT: 86.8%; ORadjusted 0.56 [0.24–1.32]). EVT was associated with higher rates of recanalization (80.5% vs. 40.7%; ORadjusted 8.85 [4.28–18.29]) compared to IVT. All secondary analyses showed higher recanalization rates in the EVT-group, which however never translated into better functional outcome rates compared to the IVT-group.
Conclusion:We observed no signal of superiority of EVT over IVT regarding functional outcome in CeAD-patients with AIS and LVO despite higher rates of complete recanalization with EVT. Whether pathophysiological CeAD-characteristics or their younger age might explain this observation deserves further research.