and Purpose Studies on mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with preexisting disability are limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of MT versus best medical treatment (BMT) in these patients. Methods In the nationwide Austrian registry and Swiss monocentric registry, we identified 462 AIS patients with pre-stroke disability (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score ≥3) and acute large vessel occlusion. The primary outcome was returning to pre-stroke mRS or better at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were early neurological improvement (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score improvement ≥8 at 24 to 48 hours), 3-month mortality, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Multivariable regression models and propensity score matching (PSM) were used for statistical analyses. Results Compared with the BMT group (n=175), the MT group (n=175) had younger age, more severe strokes, and lower pre-stroke mRS, but similar proportion of receiving intravenous thrombolysis. MT was associated with higher odds of returning to baseline mRS or better at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 4.47), early neurological improvement (aOR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.41 to 4.88), and lower risk of 3-month mortality (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.49). PSM analysis showed similar findings. MT was not associated with an increased risk of sICH (4.0% vs. 2.1% in all patients; 4.2% vs. 2.4% in the PSM cohort). Conclusions MT in patients with pre-stroke mRS ≥3 might improve the 3-month outcomes and short-term neurological impairment, suggesting that pre-stroke disability alone should not be a reason to withhold MT, but that individual case-by-case decisions may be more appropriate.

Background/Aims: According to the Chicago classification version 3.0, high-resolution manometry (HRM) should be performed in the supine position. However, with the patient in the upright/sitting position, the test could more closely simulate real-life behavior and may be better tolerated. We performed a systematic review of the literature to search whether the manometric variables and the final diagnosis are affected by positional changes. Methods: A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English that compared HRM results in different body positions were included. Moreover, the change in diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders according to the shift of body position was investigated. Results: Seventeen studies including 1714 patients and healthy volunteers met the inclusion criteria. Six studies showed a significant increase in lower esophageal sphincter basal pressure in the supine position. Integrated relaxation pressure was significantly higher in the supine position in 10 of 13 studies. Distal contractile index was higher in the supine position in 9 out of 10 studies. One hundred and fifty-one patients (16.4%) out of 922 with normal HRM in the supine position were diagnosed with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) when the test was performed in the upright position (P < 0.001). Conclusions Performing HRM in the upright position affects some variables and may change the final manometric diagnosis. Further studies to determine the normal values in the sitting position are needed.