Background Endovascular treatment for anterior circulation ischaemic stroke is effective and safe within a 6 h window. MR CLEAN-LATE aimed to assess efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment... Show moreBackground Endovascular treatment for anterior circulation ischaemic stroke is effective and safe within a 6 h window. MR CLEAN-LATE aimed to assess efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment for patients treated in the late window (6-24 h from symptom onset or last seen well) selected on the basis of the presence of collateral flow on CT angiography (CTA).Methods MR CLEAN-LATE was a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in 18 stroke intervention centres in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older with ischaemic stroke, presenting in the late window with an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion and collateral flow on CTA, and a neurological deficit score of at least 2 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale were included. Patients who were eligible for late-window endovascular treatment were treated according to national guidelines (based on clinical and perfusion imaging criteria derived from the DAWN and DEFUSE-3 trials) and excluded from MR CLEAN-LATE enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive endovascular treatment or no endovascular treatment (control), in addition to best medical treatment. Randomisation was web based, with block sizes ranging from eight to 20, and stratified by centre. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days after randomisation. Safety outcomes included all-cause mortality at 90 days after randomisation and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. All randomly assigned patients who provided deferred consent or died before consent could be obtained comprised the modified intention-to-treat population, in which the primary and safety outcomes were assessed. Analyses were adjusted for predefined confounders. Treatment effect was estimated with ordinal logistic regression and reported as an adjusted common odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN, ISRCTN19922220. Findings Between Feb 2, 2018, and Jan 27, 2022, 535 patients were randomly assigned, and 502 (94%) patients provided deferred consent or died before consent was obtained (255 in the endovascular treatment group and 247 in the control group; 261 [52%] females). The median mRS score at 90 days was lower in the endovascular treatment group than in the control group (3 [IQR 2-5] vs 4 [2-6]), and we observed a shift towards better outcomes on the mRS for the endovascular treatment group (adjusted common OR 1 center dot 67 [95% CI 1 center dot 20-2 center dot 32]). All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between groups (62 [24%] of 255 patients vs 74 [30%] of 247 patients; adjusted OR 0 center dot 72 [95% CI 0 center dot 44-1 center dot 18]). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred more often in the endovascular treatment group than in the control group (17 [7%] vs four [2%]; adjusted OR 4 center dot 59 [95% CI 1 center dot 49-14 center dot 10]). Interpretation In this study, endovascular treatment was efficacious and safe for patients with ischaemic stroke caused by an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion who presented 6-24 h from onset or last seen well, and who were selected on the basis of the presence of collateral flow on CTA. Selection of patients for endovascular treatment in the late window could be primarily based on the presence of collateral flow.Funding Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke consortium, Dutch Heart Foundation, Stryker, Medtronic, Cerenovus, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health, and the Netherlands Brain Foundation.Copyright (c) 2023 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
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
LeCouffe, N.E.; Kappelhof, M.; Treurniet, K.M.; Rinkel, L.A.; Bruggeman, A.E.; Berkhemer, O.A.; ... ; MR CLEAN-NO IV Investigators 2021
Alteplase with EVT versus EVT Alone for Stroke Trials involving Asian patients with acute stroke have suggested that endovascular treatment alone is not inferior to the usual practice of... Show moreAlteplase with EVT versus EVT Alone for Stroke Trials involving Asian patients with acute stroke have suggested that endovascular treatment alone is not inferior to the usual practice of thrombolysis before endovascular treatment. This trial involving European patients did not show noninferiority or superiority of endovascular treatment alone.Background The value of administering intravenous alteplase before endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke has not been studied extensively, particularly in non-Asian populations. Methods We performed an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial in Europe involving patients with stroke who presented directly to a hospital that was capable of providing EVT and who were eligible for intravenous alteplase and EVT. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVT alone or intravenous alteplase followed by EVT (the standard of care). The primary end point was functional outcome on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no disability] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. We assessed the superiority of EVT alone over alteplase plus EVT, as well as noninferiority by a margin of 0.8 for the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio of the two trial groups. Death from any cause and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were the main safety end points. Results The analysis included 539 patients. The median score on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 5) with EVT alone and 2 (interquartile range, 2 to 5) with alteplase plus EVT. The adjusted common odds ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.15; P=0.28), which showed neither superiority nor noninferiority of EVT alone. Mortality was 20.5% with EVT alone and 15.8% with alteplase plus EVT (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.30). Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 5.9% and 5.3% of the patients in the respective groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.81). Conclusions In a randomized trial involving European patients, EVT alone was neither superior nor noninferior to intravenous alteplase followed by EVT with regard to disability outcome at 90 days after stroke. The incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke consortium and others; MR CLEAN-NO IV ISRCTN number, .) Show less
Klos, J.; Laar, P.J. van; Sinnige, P.F.; Enngti, R.H.; Kramer, M.C.A.; Weide, H.L. van der; ... ; Hoorn, A. van der 2019
