TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes in acute carotid-related stroke eligible for mechanical reperfusion
T2 - SAFEGUARD-STROKE Registry
AU - Tekieli, Lukasz
AU - Dzierwa, Karolina
AU - Grunwald, Iris Q.
AU - Mazurek, Adam
AU - Urbanczyk-Zawadzk, Malgorzata
AU - Wiewiorka, Lukasz
AU - Banys, R. Pawel
AU - Dabrowski, Wladyslaw
AU - Podlasek, Anna
AU - Weglarz, Ewa
AU - Niak, Justyna Stefa
AU - Nizankowski, Rafal T.
AU - Musialek, Piotr
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA.
PY - 2024/7/15
Y1 - 2024/7/15
N2 - BACKGROUND: Carotid-related strokes (CRS) are largely unresponsive to intravenous thrombolysis and are often large and disabling. Little is known about contemporary CRS referral pathways and proportion of eligible patients who receive emergency mechanical reperfusion (EMR). METHODS: Referral pathways, serial imaging, treatment data, and neurologic outcomes were evaluated in consecutive CRS patients presenting over 18 months in catchment area of a major carotid disease referral center with proximal-protected CAS expertise, on-site neurology, and stroke thrombectomy capability (Acute Stroke of CArotid Artery Bifurcation Origin Treated With Use oF the MicronEt-covered CGUARD Stent - SAFEGUARD-STROKE Registry; companion to SAFEGUARD-STROKE Study NCT05195658). RESULTS: Of 101 EMR-eligible patients (31% i.v.-thrombolyzed, 39.5% women, age 39-89 years, 94.1% ASPECTS 9-10, 90.1% pre-stroke mRS 0-1), 57 (56.4%) were EMR-referred. Referrals were either endovascular (Comprehensive Stroke Centre, CSC, 21.0%; Stroke Thrombectomy-Capable CAS Centre, STCC, 70.2%) or to vascular surgery (VS, 1.8%), with >1 referral attempt in 7.0% patients (CSC/VS or VS/CSC or CSC/VS/STCC). Baseline clinical and imaging characteristics were not different between EMR-treated and EMR-untreated patients. EMR was delivered to 42.6% eligible patients (emergency carotid surgery 0%; STCC rejections 0%). On multivariable analysis, non-tandem CRS was a predictor of not getting referred for EMR (OR 0.36; 95%CI 0.14-0.93, P=0.03). Ninety-day neurologic status was profoundly better in EMRtreated patients; mRS 0-2 (83.7% vs. 34.5%); mRS 3-5 (11.6% vs. 53.4%), mRS 6 (4.6% vs. 12.1%); P<0.001 for all. CONCLUSIONS: EMR-treatment substantially improves CRS neurologic outcomes but only a minority of EMR-eligible patients receive EMR. To increase the likelihood of brain-saving treatment, EMR-eligible stroke referral and management pathways, including those for CSC/VSrejected patients, should involve stroke thrombectomy-capable centres with endovascular carotid treatment expertise.
AB - BACKGROUND: Carotid-related strokes (CRS) are largely unresponsive to intravenous thrombolysis and are often large and disabling. Little is known about contemporary CRS referral pathways and proportion of eligible patients who receive emergency mechanical reperfusion (EMR). METHODS: Referral pathways, serial imaging, treatment data, and neurologic outcomes were evaluated in consecutive CRS patients presenting over 18 months in catchment area of a major carotid disease referral center with proximal-protected CAS expertise, on-site neurology, and stroke thrombectomy capability (Acute Stroke of CArotid Artery Bifurcation Origin Treated With Use oF the MicronEt-covered CGUARD Stent - SAFEGUARD-STROKE Registry; companion to SAFEGUARD-STROKE Study NCT05195658). RESULTS: Of 101 EMR-eligible patients (31% i.v.-thrombolyzed, 39.5% women, age 39-89 years, 94.1% ASPECTS 9-10, 90.1% pre-stroke mRS 0-1), 57 (56.4%) were EMR-referred. Referrals were either endovascular (Comprehensive Stroke Centre, CSC, 21.0%; Stroke Thrombectomy-Capable CAS Centre, STCC, 70.2%) or to vascular surgery (VS, 1.8%), with >1 referral attempt in 7.0% patients (CSC/VS or VS/CSC or CSC/VS/STCC). Baseline clinical and imaging characteristics were not different between EMR-treated and EMR-untreated patients. EMR was delivered to 42.6% eligible patients (emergency carotid surgery 0%; STCC rejections 0%). On multivariable analysis, non-tandem CRS was a predictor of not getting referred for EMR (OR 0.36; 95%CI 0.14-0.93, P=0.03). Ninety-day neurologic status was profoundly better in EMRtreated patients; mRS 0-2 (83.7% vs. 34.5%); mRS 3-5 (11.6% vs. 53.4%), mRS 6 (4.6% vs. 12.1%); P<0.001 for all. CONCLUSIONS: EMR-treatment substantially improves CRS neurologic outcomes but only a minority of EMR-eligible patients receive EMR. To increase the likelihood of brain-saving treatment, EMR-eligible stroke referral and management pathways, including those for CSC/VSrejected patients, should involve stroke thrombectomy-capable centres with endovascular carotid treatment expertise.
KW - Carotid stenosis
KW - Ischemic stroke
KW - Thrombectomy
KW - Treatment outcome
U2 - 10.23736/S0021-9509.24.13093-5
DO - 10.23736/S0021-9509.24.13093-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 39007556
AN - SCOPUS:85199014715
SN - 0021-9509
VL - 65
SP - 231
EP - 248
JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
IS - 3
ER -