Key result
Good collaterals predict ~107% greater odds of functional independence following successful recanalization for cardioembolic stroke.
Why the study?
The prognostic significance of collateral circulation in cardioembolic stroke patients following successful endovascular thrombectomy remained unclear.
Does good collateral status predict improved functional independence at 3 months in patients with acute cardioembolic stroke achieving successful recanalization with endovascular thrombectomy?
Cohort (n=354)
No
Does good collateral status predict improved functional independence at 3 months in patients with acute cardioembolic stroke achieving successful recanalization with endovascular thrombectomy?
Odds Ratio: 2.07 (95% CI 1.13–3.83)
Absolute Event Rate: 61.6% vs 37.1%
p-value: p=0.020
In patients with acute cardioembolic stroke achieving successful recanalization, good collateral status is independently associated with improved functional independence and lower mortality.
Good collaterals were associated with better outcomes after successful EVT in cardioembolic stroke; leaves open whether collateral assessment should guide decisions or trials.
Background Collateral circulation sustains the ischemic penumbra during acute large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, its prognostic significance in cardioembolic stroke (CS) patients following successful endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) remains unclear. We investigated whether collateral status influences functional outcomes in acute CS patients achieving successful recanalization [modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) grade ≥2b]. Methods We retrospectively analyzed consecutive CS patients achieving successful recanalization with EVT. Collateral status was assessed using the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology/Society of Interventional Radiology (ASITN/SIR) grading system on digital subtraction angiography (DSA). The primary outcome was functional independence [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–2] at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included excellent outcome (mRS 0–1) at 3 months, in-hospital and 3-month mortality, and PH (parenchymal hematoma type 1c or 2) within 72 h. Multivariable logistic regression and subgroup analyses were performed to identify independent associations. Results Among 354 patients, 211 (59.6%) had good collaterals (ASITN/SIR 2–4) and 143 (40.4%) had poor collaterals (ASITN/SIR 0–1). After adjustment for confounders, good collateral status independently predicted functional independence [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.07; 95% CI, 1.13–3.83; p = 0.020], with rates of 61.6% versus 37.1% in the good versus poor collateral groups. Good collaterals were also independently associated with excellent outcome (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03–3.50; p = 0.042), lower in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08–0.63; p = 0.006), lower 3-month mortality (aOR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18–0.78; p = 0.009), and reduced PH rates within 72 h (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27–0.93; p = 0.029). The association between collateral status and functional independence was modified by baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) ( P for interaction = 0.007). Conclusion In CS patients achieving successful recanalization, good collateral status is independently associated with improved functional independence and excellent outcome, reduced PH rates within 72 h, and lower in-hospital mortality and 3-month mortality. Collateral assessment may enhance prognostic stratification, particularly in patients with lower baseline ASPECTS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute cardioembolic stroke (n=354). Good collateral status (ASITN/SIR 2-4) vs. Poor collateral status (ASITN/SIR 0-1) was evaluated on Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) at 3 months (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.13-3.83, p=0.020). Good collateral status independently predicted functional independence at 3 months (aOR 2.07) in patients with acute cardioembolic stroke achieving successful recanalization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: