Background: and Purpose Differences in measurement of the extent of acute ischemic stroke using the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score (ASPECTS) by non-contrast computed tomography (CT-ASPECTS stratum) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI-ASPECTS stratum) may impact the efficacy of endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with a large ischemic core. Methods: The RESCUE-Japan LIMIT (Recovery by Endovascular Salvage for Cerebral Ultra-acute Embolism Japan–Large IscheMIc core Trial) was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of EVT in patients with ASPECTS of 3–5. CT-ASPECTS was prioritized when both CT-ASPECTS and DWI-ASPECTS were measured. The effects of EVT on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days were assessed separately for each stratum. Results: Among 183 patients, 112 (EVT group, 53; No-EVT group, 59) were in the CT-ASPECTS stratum and 71 (EVT group, 40; No-EVT group, 31) in the DWI-ASPECTS stratum. The common odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) of the EVT group for one scale shift of the mRS score toward 0 was 1.29 (0.65–2.54) compared to the No-EVT group in CT-ASPECTS stratum, and 6.15 (2.46–16.3) in DWI-ASPECTS stratum with significant interaction between treatment assignment and mode of imaging study (P=0.002). There were significant interactions in the improvement of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 48 hours (CT-ASPECTS stratum: OR, 1.95; DWIASPECTS stratum: OR, 14.5; interaction P=0.035) and mortality at 90 days (CT-ASPECTS stratum: OR, 2.07; DWI-ASPECTS stratum: OR, 0.23; interaction P=0.008). Conclusion Patients with ASPECTS of 3–5 on MRI benefitted more from EVT than those with ASPECTS of 3–5 on CT.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for diverticulum-associated colorectal lesions is generally contraindicated because of the high risk of perforation. Several studies on patients with such lesions treated with ESD have been reported recently. However, the feasibility and safety of ESD for lesions in proximity to a colonic diverticulum (D-ESD) have not been fully clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of D-ESD. Methods: D-ESD was defined as ESD for lesions within approximately 3 mm of a diverticulum. Twenty-six consecutive patients who underwent D-ESD were included. Two strategic approaches were used depending on whether submucosal dissection of the diverticulum-related part was required (strategy B) or not (strategy A). Treatment outcomes and adverse events associated with each strategy were analyzed. Results: The en bloc resection rate was 96.2%. The rates of R0 and curative resection in strategies A and B were 80.8%, 73.1%, 84.6%, and 70.6%, respectively. Two cases of intraoperative perforation and one case of delayed perforation occurred. The delayed perforation case required emergency surgery, but the other cases were managed conservatively. Conclusions D-ESD may be a feasible treatment option. However, it should be performed in a high-volume center by expert hands because it requires highly skilled endoscopic techniques.