Why the study?
Because of the benefit of thrombectomy in selected trial patients with large vessel occlusion, some trial-ineligible patients receive treatment in practice, but safety and efficacy in DAWN/DEFUSE-3-ineligible patients remained uncertain.
Does endovascular thrombectomy improve functional outcomes in DAWN/DEFUSE-3-ineligible patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion?
Does endovascular thrombectomy improve functional outcomes in DAWN/DEFUSE-3-ineligible patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion?
Endovascular thrombectomy in clinical practice for patients ineligible for the DAWN/DEFUSE-3 trials yields potentially favorable outcomes, particularly in those with mild deficits or M2 occlusions, though sICH risk is higher in those with ASPECTS <6.
Supports expanded thrombectomy access for ineligible LVO patients; leaves open definitive safety and efficacy assessment in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Because of the overwhelming benefit of thrombectomy for highly selected trial patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO), some trial-ineligible patients are being treated in practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of thrombectomy in DAWN/DEFUSE-3-ineligible patients. METHODS: Using a multicenter prospective observational study of consecutive patients with anterior circulation LVO who underwent late thrombectomy, we compared symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) and good outcome (90-d mRS 0-2) among DAWN/DEFUSE-3-ineligible patients to trial-eligible patients and to untreated DAWN/DEFUSE-3 controls. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients had perfusion imaging and underwent thrombectomy >6 h; 46 (47%) were trial ineligible (41% M2 occlusions, 39% mild deficits, 28% ASPECTS <6). In multivariable regression, the odds of a good outcome (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.49-1.19) and sICH (aOR 3.33, 95% CI 0.42-26.12) were not different among trial-ineligible vs eligible patients. Patients with mild deficits were more likely to achieve a good outcome (aOR 3.62, 95% CI 1.48-8.86) and less sICH (0% vs 10%, P = .16), whereas patients with ASPECTS <6 had poorer outcomes (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.44) and more sICH (aOR 24, 95% CI 5.7-103). Compared to untreated DAWN/DEFUSE-3 controls, trial-ineligible patients had more sICH (13%BEST vs 3%DAWN [P = .02] vs 4%DEFUSE [P = .05]), but were more likely to achieve a good outcome at 90 d (36%BEST vs 13%DAWN [P < .01] vs 17%DEFUSE [P = .01]). CONCLUSION: Thrombectomy is used in practice for some patients ineligible for the DAWN/DEFUSE-3 trials with potentially favorable outcomes. Additional trials are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of thrombectomy in broader populations, such as large core infarction and M2 occlusions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siegler et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: