Does the Benefit of Thrombectomy in Large Strokes Depend on Perfusion–Diffusion Mismatch? A Large Stroke Therapy Evaluation Trial Post Hoc Analysis
10.5853/jos.2025.01200
- Author:
Adrien Ter SCHIPHORST
;
Caroline ARQUIZAN
;
Guillaume TURC
;
Julien LABREUCHE
;
Bertrand LAPERGUE
;
David S. LIEBESKIND
;
Hilde HENON
;
Nasreddine NOURI
;
Jean-François ALBUCHER
;
Christophe COGNARD
;
Gaultier MARNAT
;
Igor SIBON
;
Benjamin GORY
;
Sébastien RICHARD
;
Olivier NAGGARA
;
Mariam ANNAN
;
Grégoire BOULOUIS
;
Eker F. OMER
;
Tae-Hee CHO
;
Federico Di MARIA
;
Romain BOURCIER
;
Benoit GUILLON
;
Michael OBADIA
;
Michel PIOTIN
;
Anna FERRIER
;
Emmanuel CHABERT
;
Mònica MILLÁN
;
Liesjet van DOKKUM
;
Tudor G. JOVIN
;
Emmanuelle Le BARS
;
Vincent COSTALAT
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Journal of Stroke
2026;28(1):115-125
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:and Purpose Whether perfusion-diffusion mismatch modifies treatment effect of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for large strokes is poorly known. To address this question, we conducted a post hoc secondary analysis of the Large Stroke Therapy Evaluation (LASTE) randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Methods:The LASTE RCT compared MT plus best medical treatment (BMT) to BMT alone in patients with large infarct (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score 0–5) in the 0–7-hour timewindow. This secondary analysis was restricted to patients with available baseline MR perfusionweighted imaging. We investigated the potential heterogeneity of MT treatment according to the presence of perfusion-diffusion mismatch, defined as a mismatch ratio ≥1.2, calculated as the time-to-maximum >6 seconds cerebral volume divided by ischemic core volume. The primary outcome was better functional outcome (favorable shift in the distribution of modified Rankin Scale [mRS] at 90 days, analyzed using generalized odds ratio [GenOR]).
Results:A total of 102/324 patients were included, among whom 55 (54%) had a perfusiondiffusion mismatch. No significant treatment effect heterogeneity by diffusion-perfusion mismatch was observed for the primary outcome (GenOR for better functional outcome: 1.70 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.95 to 3.05] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.87] in patients with and without mismatch, respectively; ratio of GenORs: 1.63 [95% CI, 0.71 to 3.74]; P for heterogeneity=0.24) or for the secondary efficacy and safety outcomes.
Conclusions:Our study found no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to benefit or safety in patients with unrestricted infarct size at baseline treated with MT by presence of perfusion-diffusion mismatch. An individual participant-data meta-analysis of RCT is needed for definitive conclusions.
