Background Aspirin and unfractionated heparin are often used during endovascular stroke treatment to improve reperfusion and outcomes. However, the effects and risks of anti-thrombotics for this... Show moreBackground Aspirin and unfractionated heparin are often used during endovascular stroke treatment to improve reperfusion and outcomes. However, the effects and risks of anti-thrombotics for this indication are unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous aspirin, unfractionated heparin, both, or neither started during endovascular treatment in patients with ischaemic stroke.Methods We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a 2 x 3 factorial design in 15 centres in the Netherlands. We enrolled adult patients (ie, >= 18 years) with ischaemic stroke due to an intracranial large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation in whom endovascular treatment could be initiated within 6 h of symptom onset. Eligible patients had a score of 2 or more on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and a CT or MRI ruling out intracranial haemorrhage. Randomisation was done using a web-based procedure with permuted blocks and stratified by centre. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either periprocedural intravenous aspirin (300 mg bolus) or no aspirin, and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive moderate-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 1250 IU/h for 6 h), low-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 500 IU/h for 6 h), or no unfractionated heparin. The primary outcome was the score on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was the main safety outcome. Analyses were based on intention to treat, and treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or common ORs, with adjustment for baseline prognostic factors. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN76741621.Findings Between Jan 22, 2018, and Jan 27, 2021, we randomly assigned 663 patients; of whom, 628 (95%) provided deferred consent or died before consent could be asked and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. On Feb 4, 2021, after unblinding and analysis of the data, the trial steering committee permanently stopped patient recruitment and the trial was stopped for safety concerns. The risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was higher in patients allocated to receive aspirin than in those not receiving aspirin (43 [14%] of 310 vs 23 [7%] of 318; adjusted OR 1.95 [95% CI 1.13-3.35]) as well as in patients allocated to receive unfractionated heparin than in those not receiving unfractionated heparin (44 [13%] of 332 vs 22 [7%] of 296; 1.98 [1.14-3.46]). Both aspirin (adjusted common OR 0.91 [95% CI 0.69-1.21]) and unfractionated heparin (0.81 [0.61-1.08]) led to a non-significant shift towards worse modified Rankin Scale scores.Interpretation Periprocedural intravenous aspirin and unfractionated heparin during endovascular stroke treatment are both associated with an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage without evidence for a beneficial effect on functional outcome. Copyright (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Background Aspirin and unfractionated heparin are often used during endovascular stroke treatment to improve reperfusion and outcomes. However, the effects and risks of anti-thrombotics for this... Show moreBackground Aspirin and unfractionated heparin are often used during endovascular stroke treatment to improve reperfusion and outcomes. However, the effects and risks of anti-thrombotics for this indication are unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous aspirin, unfractionated heparin, both, or neither started during endovascular treatment in patients with ischaemic stroke.Methods We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a 2 x 3 factorial design in 15 centres in the Netherlands. We enrolled adult patients (ie, >= 18 years) with ischaemic stroke due to an intracranial large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation in whom endovascular treatment could be initiated within 6 h of symptom onset. Eligible patients had a score of 2 or more on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and a CT or MRI ruling out intracranial haemorrhage. Randomisation was done using a web-based procedure with permuted blocks and stratified by centre. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either periprocedural intravenous aspirin (300 mg bolus) or no aspirin, and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive moderate-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 1250 IU/h for 6 h), low-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 500 IU/h for 6 h), or no unfractionated heparin. The primary outcome was the score on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was the main safety outcome. Analyses were based on intention to treat, and treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or common ORs, with adjustment for baseline prognostic factors. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN76741621.Findings Between Jan 22, 2018, and Jan 27, 2021, we randomly assigned 663 patients; of whom, 628 (95%) provided deferred consent or died before consent could be asked and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. On Feb 4, 2021, after unblinding and analysis of the data, the trial steering committee permanently stopped patient recruitment and the trial was stopped for safety concerns. The risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was higher in patients allocated to receive aspirin than in those not receiving aspirin (43 [14%] of 310 vs 23 [7%] of 318; adjusted OR 1.95 [95% CI 1.13-3.35]) as well as in patients allocated to receive unfractionated heparin than in those not receiving unfractionated heparin (44 [13%] of 332 vs 22 [7%] of 296; 1.98 [1.14-3.46]). Both aspirin (adjusted common OR 0.91 [95% CI 0.69-1.21]) and unfractionated heparin (0.81 [0.61-1.08]) led to a non-significant shift towards worse modified Rankin Scale scores.Interpretation Periprocedural intravenous aspirin and unfractionated heparin during endovascular stroke treatment are both associated with an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage without evidence for a beneficial effect on functional outcome. Copyright (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Introduction We investigated the impact of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the resulting lockdown on reperfusion treatments and door-to-treatment times during the first surge... Show moreIntroduction We investigated the impact of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the resulting lockdown on reperfusion treatments and door-to-treatment times during the first surge in Dutch comprehensive stroke centers. Furthermore, we studied the association between COVID-19-status and treatment times. Methods We included all patients receiving reperfusion treatment in 17 Dutch stroke centers from May 11th, 2017, until May 11th, 2020. We collected baseline characteristics, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at admission, onset-to-door time (ODT), door-to-needle time (DNT), door-to-groin time (DGT) and COVID-19-status at admission. Parameters during the lockdown (March 15th, 2020 until May 11th, 2020) were compared with those in the same period in 2019, and between groups stratified by COVID-19-status. We used nationwide data and extrapolated our findings to the increasing trend of EVT numbers since May 2017. Results A decline of 14% was seen in reperfusion treatments during lockdown, with a decline in both IVT and EVT delivery. DGT increased by 12 min (50 to 62 min, p-value of < 0.001). Furthermore, median NIHSS-scores were higher in COVID-19 - suspected or positive patients (7 to 11, p-value of 0.004), door-to-treatment times did not differ significantly when stratified for COVID-19-status. Conclusions During the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decline in acute reperfusion treatments and a delay in DGT was seen, which indicates a target for attention. It also appeared that COVID-19-positive or -suspected patients had more severe neurologic symptoms, whereas their EVT-workflow was not affected. Show less
