Interaction between intravenous thrombolysis and clinical outcome between slow and fast progressors undergoing mechanical thrombectomy: a post-hoc analysis of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial

Abstract

BackgroundIn proximal occlusions, the effect of reperfusion therapies may differ between slow or fast progressors. We investigated the effect of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) (with alteplase) plus mechanical thrombectomy (MT) versus thrombectomy alone among slow versus fast stroke progressors.MethodsThe SWIFT-DIRECT trial data were analyzed: 408 patients randomized to IVT+MT or MT alone. Infarct growth speed was defined by the number of points of decay in the initial Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) divided by the onset-to-imaging time. The primary endpoint was 3-month functional independence (modified Rankin scale 0–2). In the primary analysis, the study population was dichotomized into slow and fast progressors using median infarct growth velocity. Secondary analysis was also conducted using quartiles of ASPECTS decay.ResultsWe included 376 patients: 191 IVT+MT, 185 MT alone; median age 73 years (IQR 65–81); median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 17 (IQR 13–20). The median infarct growth velocity was 1.2 points/hour. Overall, we did not observe a significant interaction between the infarct growth speed and the allocation to either randomization group on the odds of favourable outcome (P=0.68). In the IVT+MT group, odds of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were significantly lower in slow progressors (22.8% vs 36.4%; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98) and higher among fast progressors (49.4% vs 26.8%; OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.82) (P value for interaction <0.001). Similar results were observed in secondary analyses.ConclusionIn this SWIFT-DIRECT subanalysis, we did not find evidence for a significant interaction of the velocity of infarct growth on the odds of favourable outcome according to treatment by MT alone or combined IVT+MT. However, prior IVT was associated with significantly reduced occurrence of any ICH among slow progressors whereas this was increased in fast progressors.

Idarucizumab in dabigatran-treated patients with acute stroke: a review and clinical update

“…The additional value of IVT before EVT in patients with LVO has been extensively debated over the last decade, leading to reassuring results of non-omitting IVT before EVT, unless there are contraindications against IVT ( 56 , 57 ). According to accumulating evidence that idarucizumab use before IVT may be effective and safe, this therapeutic strategy should also be used in patients with LVO before EVT, especially if a patient is initially referred to a center not performing EVT (drip and ship concept).…”