Campbell, B. C.V. et al. (2019) Penumbral imaging and functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy versus medical therapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data.ABSTRACT Background: CT-perfusion (CTP) and MRI may assist patient selection for endovascular thrombectomy. We aimed to establish whether imaging assessments of ischaemic core and penumbra volumes were associated with functional outcomes and treatment effect.

Campbell, B. C. V. et al. (2018) Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Neurology, 17(1), pp. 47-53. (doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30407-6) This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/149670/ variables. An alternative approach using propensity-score stratification was also used. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modeling with a random effect for trial incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.Findings: Of 1764 patients in 7 trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 who did not undergo the procedure and 2 with missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236/797 (30%) of endovascular patients were treated under GA. At baseline, GA patients were younger and had shorter time to randomisation but similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared to non-GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months versus standard care in both GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95%CI 1·09-2·11, p=0·014) and non-GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95%CI 1·75-3·10, p<0·001) patients. However, outcomes were significantly better for those treated under non-GA versus GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95%CI 1·14-2·04, p=0·004; propensitystratified cOR 1·44 95%CI 1·08-1·92, p=0·012). The risk of bias and variability among studies was assessed to be low.Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons. Funding:The HERMES collaboration was funded by an unrestricted grant from Medtronic to the University of Calgary. Research in contextEvidence before this study between abolition of the thrombectomy treatment effect in MR CLEAN and no effect in THRACE. Three single-centre randomised trials of general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation found either no difference in functional outcome between groups or a slight benefit of general anaesthesia. Added value of this studyThese data from contemporary, high quality randomised trials form the largest study to date of the association between general anesthesia and the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care. We used two different approaches to adjust for baseline imbalances (multivariable logistic regression and propensity-score stratification). We found that GA for endovascular thrombectomy, as practiced in contemporary clinical care across a wide range of expert centres during the rand...

Background and Purpose: The efficiency of prehospital care chain response and the adequacy of hospital resources are challenged amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, with suspected consequences for patients with ischemic stroke eligible for mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods: We conducted a prospective national-level data collection of patients treated with MT, ranging 45 days across epidemic containment measures instatement, and of patients treated during the same calendar period in 2019. The primary end point was the variation of patients receiving MT during the epidemic period. Secondary end points included care delays between onset, imaging, and groin puncture. To analyze the primary end point, we used a Poisson regression model. We then analyzed the correlation between the number of MTs and the number of COVID-19 cases hospitalizations, using the Pearson correlation coefficient (compared with the null value). Results: A total of 1513 patients were included at 32 centers, in all French administrative regions. There was a 21% significant decrease (0.79; [95%CI, 0.76–0.82]; P <0.001) in MT case volumes during the epidemic period, and a significant increase in delays between imaging and groin puncture, overall (mean 144.9±SD 86.8 minutes versus 126.2±70.9; P <0.001 in 2019) and in transferred patients (mean 182.6±SD 82.0 minutes versus 153.25±67; P <0.001). After the instatement of strict epidemic mitigation measures, there was a significant negative correlation between the number of hospitalizations for COVID and the number of MT cases ( R 2 −0.51; P =0.04). Patients treated during the COVID outbreak were less likely to receive intravenous thrombolysis and to have unwitnessed strokes (both P <0.05). Conclusions: Our study showed a significant decrease in patients treated with MTs during the first stages of the COVID epidemic in France and alarming indicators of lengthened care delays. These findings prompt immediate consideration of local and regional stroke networks preparedness in the varying contexts of COVID-19 pandemic evolution.

Absolute baseline ASPECT score reflects early symptomatic hemorrhage risk and functional outcome at 3 months. Thrombus length measured on MRI play an important role on functional outcome at 3 months after thrombectomy. Further analyses are needed to determine its importance in the selection of patients for mechanical thrombectomy.

Object The management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical community agreement in decision making regarding unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Methods A portfolio of 41 cases of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with angiographic images, along with a short description of the patient presentation, was sent to 28 clinicians (16 radiologists and 12 surgeons) with varying years of experience in the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Five senior clinicians responded twice at least 3 months apart. Nineteen cases (46%) were selected from patients recruited in the Canadian UnRuptured Endovascular versus Surgery trial, an ongoing randomized comparison of coil embolization and clip placement. For each case, the responder was to first choose between 3 treatment options (observation, surgical clip placement, or endovascular coil embolization) and then indicate their level of certainty on a quantitative 0–10 scale. Agreement in decision making was studied using κ statistics. Results Decisions to coil were more frequent (n = 612, 53%) than decisions to clip (n = 289, 25%) or to observe (n = 259, 22%). Interjudge agreement was only fair (κ = 0.31 ± 0.02) for all cases and all judges, despite substantial intrajudge agreement (range 0.44–0.83 ± 0.10), with high mean individual certainty levels for each case (range 6.5–9.4 ± 2.0 on a scale of 0–10). Agreement was no better within specialties (surgeons or radiologists), within capability groups (those able to perform endovascular coiling alone, surgical clipping alone, or both), or with more experience. There was no correlation between certainty levels and years of experience. Agreement was lower when the cases were taken from the randomized trial (κ = 0.19 ± 0.2) compared with nontrial cases (κ = 0.35 ± 0.2). Conclusions Individuals do not agree regarding the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms, even when they share a background in the same specialty, similar capabilities in aneurysm management, or years of practice. If community equipoise is a necessary precondition for trial participation, this study has found sufficient uncertainty and disagreement among clinicians to justify randomized trials.