User login
Robotic transcranial Doppler improves PFO detection after stroke
in a new study.
Being far easier to perform than regular transcranial Doppler ultrasound, it’s hoped that use of the robotic device will enable many more patients to undergo the more sensitive transcranial screening modality and increase the number of shunts identified.
“I believe robot-assisted transcranial Doppler ultrasound can fill the gap between the gold standard transcranial Doppler and transthoracic echocardiography, which is the current standard of care,” said lead author Mark Rubin, MD.
Dr. Rubin, who is assistant professor of neurology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, presented results of the BUBL study at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, where they were greeted with applause from the floor.
An improvement in the current standard of care
Dr. Rubin explained that patients with suspected embolic stroke are routinely screened for shunts in the heart, such as patent foramen ovale (PFO), that allow blood to flow from the right chamber to the left chamber and can lead to clots from the venous system, accessing the arterial system, then traveling to the brain and causing a stroke.
The current standard of care in screening for such shunts is the use of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), a widely available and easy to perform, non-invasive procedure. “But we have known for decades that TTE does not pick up these shunts very well. With a sensitivity of only around 45%, it identifies less than half of the patients affected,” Dr. Rubin noted.
The more sensitive transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) gives much better results, but it is an invasive and unpleasant procedure with the ultrasound probe being passed down the throat, and the patient needing to be sedated, so it’s not appropriate for everyone, he noted.
“Transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) also gives excellent results, with a sensitivity of about 96% for detecting PFO, but this procedure is difficult to perform and requires a great deal of skill in placing the probes in the right position and interpreting the signal,” Dr. Rubin said. “TCD has been around for decades, but it hasn’t caught on, as it is too difficult to do. It takes a lot of time to learn the technique.”
“With the robotic-assisted transcranial Doppler device, we can achieve the sensitivity of TCD without needing expert operators. This should vastly improve accessibility to this technology,” he said. “With such technology we can make significant strides into more accurate diagnoses on the cause of stroke, which should lead to better preventive treatments in those found to have right-to-left shunts.”
Robotic detection of shunts
For the BUBL study, the robotic TCD technique was compared with the standard TTE in 129 patients who had a diagnosis of presumed embolic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), with all patients undergoing both procedures.
The robotic TCD device resembles a giant pair of headphones containing the ultrasound probes, which are attached to a frame. In the study, it was operated by a health care professional without TCD skills. Each ultrasound probe independently scans the temporal area autonomously – with angling and positive pressure against the scalp akin to a sonographer – to find and optimize bilateral middle cerebral artery signals, Dr. Rubin explained.
The primary endpoint was the detection of a right-to-left shunt. This occurred in 82 of the 129 patients (63.6%) with the robotic TCD device but in only 27 patients (20.9%) when TTE was used. This gives an absolute difference of 42.6% (95% confidence interval, 28.6%-56.7%; P < .001), which Dr. Rubin described as “astounding.”
However, he said he was not surprised by these results.
“In my experience with transcranial Doppler, I find shunts in patients every day that have not been seen with transthoracic echo,” he commented.
He noted that a previous meta-analysis has suggested a similar difference between TCD and transthoracic echo, but the current study provides prospectively collected data produced in a clinical trial setting and is therefore more reliable.
“What I hope comes from this is that more patients will be able to undergo transcranial Doppler, which is a far superior screening technique for identifying right-to-left shunts. There is so much evidence to support the use of transcranial Doppler, but with this new artificial-intelligence robotic device, we don’t need an expert to use it,” Dr. Rubin said.
He explained that finding a right-to-left shunt in stroke patients is particularly important, as it can direct treatment strategies to reduce future risk of recurrent strokes.
“If a patient has a large shunt, then they have a high risk of having another stroke, and the PFO should be closed.”
In this study, the robotic-assisted TCD detected three times as many large shunts that were considered “intervenable,” compared with transthoracic echo, identifying these shunts in 35 patients (27%) compared to just 13 (10%) with TTE.
“Of the 35 patients with intervenable shunts detected with robotic transcranial Doppler, TTE was completely negative in 18 of them and only suggested a small shunt in the others. So, the standard of care (TTE) missed half the patients with intervenable PFOs,” Dr. Rubin reported.
Study should ‘dramatically change’ practice
Commenting on the study, Patrick Lyden, MD, professor of physiology and neuroscience and of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “Most clinicians hesitate to use transcranial Doppler given the need for specialized technical expertise to obtain a reliable result. This study showed that a robotic transcranial Doppler device – which can be applied by any cardiac non-invasive lab technician – provides reliable and rigorous data.”
He added: “This result will dramatically change the typical evaluation of patients with suspected PFO: In place of an invasive transesophageal echo that requires anesthesia and a cardiologist, most patients can have a non-invasive, robotic-guided transcranial Doppler and get the same diagnostic benefit.”
Dr. Lyden also pointed out that the cost of TCD is typically one-tenth that of TEE, although he said the cost of the robotic guided TCD “is not clear.”
A representative of the company that makes the robotic assisted device, NovaSignal, says the cost of the equipment is approximately $250,000, but “understanding the importance of the technology, we work with each hospital to meet their unique needs.”
The company adds that it currently has “over 45 commercial solutions deployed across 25 centers with 3-4 times growth expected year over year.”
The study was supported by NovaSignal, the company which makes the robotic device. Dr. Rubin reports acting as a consultant for the NovaSignal.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new study.
Being far easier to perform than regular transcranial Doppler ultrasound, it’s hoped that use of the robotic device will enable many more patients to undergo the more sensitive transcranial screening modality and increase the number of shunts identified.
“I believe robot-assisted transcranial Doppler ultrasound can fill the gap between the gold standard transcranial Doppler and transthoracic echocardiography, which is the current standard of care,” said lead author Mark Rubin, MD.
Dr. Rubin, who is assistant professor of neurology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, presented results of the BUBL study at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, where they were greeted with applause from the floor.
An improvement in the current standard of care
Dr. Rubin explained that patients with suspected embolic stroke are routinely screened for shunts in the heart, such as patent foramen ovale (PFO), that allow blood to flow from the right chamber to the left chamber and can lead to clots from the venous system, accessing the arterial system, then traveling to the brain and causing a stroke.
The current standard of care in screening for such shunts is the use of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), a widely available and easy to perform, non-invasive procedure. “But we have known for decades that TTE does not pick up these shunts very well. With a sensitivity of only around 45%, it identifies less than half of the patients affected,” Dr. Rubin noted.
The more sensitive transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) gives much better results, but it is an invasive and unpleasant procedure with the ultrasound probe being passed down the throat, and the patient needing to be sedated, so it’s not appropriate for everyone, he noted.
“Transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) also gives excellent results, with a sensitivity of about 96% for detecting PFO, but this procedure is difficult to perform and requires a great deal of skill in placing the probes in the right position and interpreting the signal,” Dr. Rubin said. “TCD has been around for decades, but it hasn’t caught on, as it is too difficult to do. It takes a lot of time to learn the technique.”
“With the robotic-assisted transcranial Doppler device, we can achieve the sensitivity of TCD without needing expert operators. This should vastly improve accessibility to this technology,” he said. “With such technology we can make significant strides into more accurate diagnoses on the cause of stroke, which should lead to better preventive treatments in those found to have right-to-left shunts.”
Robotic detection of shunts
For the BUBL study, the robotic TCD technique was compared with the standard TTE in 129 patients who had a diagnosis of presumed embolic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), with all patients undergoing both procedures.
The robotic TCD device resembles a giant pair of headphones containing the ultrasound probes, which are attached to a frame. In the study, it was operated by a health care professional without TCD skills. Each ultrasound probe independently scans the temporal area autonomously – with angling and positive pressure against the scalp akin to a sonographer – to find and optimize bilateral middle cerebral artery signals, Dr. Rubin explained.
The primary endpoint was the detection of a right-to-left shunt. This occurred in 82 of the 129 patients (63.6%) with the robotic TCD device but in only 27 patients (20.9%) when TTE was used. This gives an absolute difference of 42.6% (95% confidence interval, 28.6%-56.7%; P < .001), which Dr. Rubin described as “astounding.”
However, he said he was not surprised by these results.
“In my experience with transcranial Doppler, I find shunts in patients every day that have not been seen with transthoracic echo,” he commented.
He noted that a previous meta-analysis has suggested a similar difference between TCD and transthoracic echo, but the current study provides prospectively collected data produced in a clinical trial setting and is therefore more reliable.
“What I hope comes from this is that more patients will be able to undergo transcranial Doppler, which is a far superior screening technique for identifying right-to-left shunts. There is so much evidence to support the use of transcranial Doppler, but with this new artificial-intelligence robotic device, we don’t need an expert to use it,” Dr. Rubin said.
He explained that finding a right-to-left shunt in stroke patients is particularly important, as it can direct treatment strategies to reduce future risk of recurrent strokes.
“If a patient has a large shunt, then they have a high risk of having another stroke, and the PFO should be closed.”
In this study, the robotic-assisted TCD detected three times as many large shunts that were considered “intervenable,” compared with transthoracic echo, identifying these shunts in 35 patients (27%) compared to just 13 (10%) with TTE.
“Of the 35 patients with intervenable shunts detected with robotic transcranial Doppler, TTE was completely negative in 18 of them and only suggested a small shunt in the others. So, the standard of care (TTE) missed half the patients with intervenable PFOs,” Dr. Rubin reported.
Study should ‘dramatically change’ practice
Commenting on the study, Patrick Lyden, MD, professor of physiology and neuroscience and of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “Most clinicians hesitate to use transcranial Doppler given the need for specialized technical expertise to obtain a reliable result. This study showed that a robotic transcranial Doppler device – which can be applied by any cardiac non-invasive lab technician – provides reliable and rigorous data.”
He added: “This result will dramatically change the typical evaluation of patients with suspected PFO: In place of an invasive transesophageal echo that requires anesthesia and a cardiologist, most patients can have a non-invasive, robotic-guided transcranial Doppler and get the same diagnostic benefit.”
Dr. Lyden also pointed out that the cost of TCD is typically one-tenth that of TEE, although he said the cost of the robotic guided TCD “is not clear.”
A representative of the company that makes the robotic assisted device, NovaSignal, says the cost of the equipment is approximately $250,000, but “understanding the importance of the technology, we work with each hospital to meet their unique needs.”
The company adds that it currently has “over 45 commercial solutions deployed across 25 centers with 3-4 times growth expected year over year.”
The study was supported by NovaSignal, the company which makes the robotic device. Dr. Rubin reports acting as a consultant for the NovaSignal.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new study.
Being far easier to perform than regular transcranial Doppler ultrasound, it’s hoped that use of the robotic device will enable many more patients to undergo the more sensitive transcranial screening modality and increase the number of shunts identified.
“I believe robot-assisted transcranial Doppler ultrasound can fill the gap between the gold standard transcranial Doppler and transthoracic echocardiography, which is the current standard of care,” said lead author Mark Rubin, MD.
Dr. Rubin, who is assistant professor of neurology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, presented results of the BUBL study at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, where they were greeted with applause from the floor.
An improvement in the current standard of care
Dr. Rubin explained that patients with suspected embolic stroke are routinely screened for shunts in the heart, such as patent foramen ovale (PFO), that allow blood to flow from the right chamber to the left chamber and can lead to clots from the venous system, accessing the arterial system, then traveling to the brain and causing a stroke.
The current standard of care in screening for such shunts is the use of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), a widely available and easy to perform, non-invasive procedure. “But we have known for decades that TTE does not pick up these shunts very well. With a sensitivity of only around 45%, it identifies less than half of the patients affected,” Dr. Rubin noted.
The more sensitive transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) gives much better results, but it is an invasive and unpleasant procedure with the ultrasound probe being passed down the throat, and the patient needing to be sedated, so it’s not appropriate for everyone, he noted.
“Transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) also gives excellent results, with a sensitivity of about 96% for detecting PFO, but this procedure is difficult to perform and requires a great deal of skill in placing the probes in the right position and interpreting the signal,” Dr. Rubin said. “TCD has been around for decades, but it hasn’t caught on, as it is too difficult to do. It takes a lot of time to learn the technique.”
“With the robotic-assisted transcranial Doppler device, we can achieve the sensitivity of TCD without needing expert operators. This should vastly improve accessibility to this technology,” he said. “With such technology we can make significant strides into more accurate diagnoses on the cause of stroke, which should lead to better preventive treatments in those found to have right-to-left shunts.”
Robotic detection of shunts
For the BUBL study, the robotic TCD technique was compared with the standard TTE in 129 patients who had a diagnosis of presumed embolic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), with all patients undergoing both procedures.
The robotic TCD device resembles a giant pair of headphones containing the ultrasound probes, which are attached to a frame. In the study, it was operated by a health care professional without TCD skills. Each ultrasound probe independently scans the temporal area autonomously – with angling and positive pressure against the scalp akin to a sonographer – to find and optimize bilateral middle cerebral artery signals, Dr. Rubin explained.
The primary endpoint was the detection of a right-to-left shunt. This occurred in 82 of the 129 patients (63.6%) with the robotic TCD device but in only 27 patients (20.9%) when TTE was used. This gives an absolute difference of 42.6% (95% confidence interval, 28.6%-56.7%; P < .001), which Dr. Rubin described as “astounding.”
However, he said he was not surprised by these results.
“In my experience with transcranial Doppler, I find shunts in patients every day that have not been seen with transthoracic echo,” he commented.
He noted that a previous meta-analysis has suggested a similar difference between TCD and transthoracic echo, but the current study provides prospectively collected data produced in a clinical trial setting and is therefore more reliable.
“What I hope comes from this is that more patients will be able to undergo transcranial Doppler, which is a far superior screening technique for identifying right-to-left shunts. There is so much evidence to support the use of transcranial Doppler, but with this new artificial-intelligence robotic device, we don’t need an expert to use it,” Dr. Rubin said.
He explained that finding a right-to-left shunt in stroke patients is particularly important, as it can direct treatment strategies to reduce future risk of recurrent strokes.
“If a patient has a large shunt, then they have a high risk of having another stroke, and the PFO should be closed.”
In this study, the robotic-assisted TCD detected three times as many large shunts that were considered “intervenable,” compared with transthoracic echo, identifying these shunts in 35 patients (27%) compared to just 13 (10%) with TTE.
“Of the 35 patients with intervenable shunts detected with robotic transcranial Doppler, TTE was completely negative in 18 of them and only suggested a small shunt in the others. So, the standard of care (TTE) missed half the patients with intervenable PFOs,” Dr. Rubin reported.
Study should ‘dramatically change’ practice
Commenting on the study, Patrick Lyden, MD, professor of physiology and neuroscience and of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “Most clinicians hesitate to use transcranial Doppler given the need for specialized technical expertise to obtain a reliable result. This study showed that a robotic transcranial Doppler device – which can be applied by any cardiac non-invasive lab technician – provides reliable and rigorous data.”
He added: “This result will dramatically change the typical evaluation of patients with suspected PFO: In place of an invasive transesophageal echo that requires anesthesia and a cardiologist, most patients can have a non-invasive, robotic-guided transcranial Doppler and get the same diagnostic benefit.”
Dr. Lyden also pointed out that the cost of TCD is typically one-tenth that of TEE, although he said the cost of the robotic guided TCD “is not clear.”
A representative of the company that makes the robotic assisted device, NovaSignal, says the cost of the equipment is approximately $250,000, but “understanding the importance of the technology, we work with each hospital to meet their unique needs.”
The company adds that it currently has “over 45 commercial solutions deployed across 25 centers with 3-4 times growth expected year over year.”
The study was supported by NovaSignal, the company which makes the robotic device. Dr. Rubin reports acting as a consultant for the NovaSignal.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Liquid embolism of AVM tied to high cure rate
new observational data suggest. In a prospective, real-world study of more than 100 patients, use of the Onyx system was associated with a cure rate of 86% for cAVMs smaller than 3 cm.
“Endovascular treatment using Onyx is able to achieve, on its own, a very efficient cure rate with a low morbidity and mortality rate,” said investigator Laurent Spelle, MD, PhD, professor of neuroradiology at Paris-Saclay University and chair of NEURI, the Brain Vascular Center, Bicêtre Hospital, also in Paris.
Dr. Spelle presented the findings at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Prospective, multicenter study
Currently, the main treatment options for cAVM are embolization, neurosurgery, and radiosurgery. The Onyx liquid system, one method of providing embolization, uses a biocompatible ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer.
It has been used in Europe for 22 years as a curative treatment and as a treatment before radiosurgery or neurosurgery. In the United States, Onyx is indicated for presurgical and preradiotherapy treatment only.
For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of Onyx for the embolization of cAVM as curative treatment or preoperative preparation.
They enrolled 165 patients in the nonrandomized, observational study, which was conducted at 15 hospitals in France. Eligible participants had an untreated cAVM.
Patients were assigned to one of three groups, according to the hospital’s standard of care. One group underwent embolization with Onyx as curative treatment, one received Onyx as preparation for neurosurgery, and one underwent embolization with Onyx as preparation for radiosurgery.
The study’s safety endpoints were device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 1 month after each embolization. The efficacy endpoints were recovery at 12 months after the last embolization or neurosurgery, or at a minimum of 36 months after radiosurgery.
The researchers defined morbidity as a worsening of modified Rankin Scale score of 2 or more points for patients presenting with baseline mRS of 0 or 1, or a worsening of 1 or more points for patients with an mRS of 2 or greater at baseline. An independent clinical events committee and core laboratory adjudicated the results.
‘A fantastic result’
In all, 140 patients were prospectively included, and 212 embolization procedures were performed. The population’s mean age was 41.4 years, and 60% of participants were men. About 61% of patients presented with symptoms, the most common of which were progressive neurologic deficit (41.2%) and headache (36.5%).
Approximately 64% of the cAVMs were ruptured. Most (75.7%) were smaller than 3 cm, and the remainder were between 3 and 6 cm. Most patients (59.3%) did not have an aneurysm.
Eight (3.8%) adverse events were associated with the use of Onyx. The rate of procedure-related neurologic serious adverse events was 7.1% within 1 month post embolization. Three deaths occurred (2.1%), one of which was considered device or procedure related.
A total of 87 patients underwent embolization alone, 14 of whom did not complete the study (2 died, 5 were lost to follow-up, and 7 withdrew). Of the 73 who completed the study, 58 (79.5%) had complete occlusion and full recovery at last follow-up. An additional 6.8% had 99% occlusion.
In addition, 3.4% of the population had significant morbidity, and 18.4% presented at baseline with mRS scores of 3-5. Of the latter group, 81.3% had mRS scores of 0-2 at last visit.
Of 21 patients who underwent subsequent neurosurgery, 18 completed follow-up. Of this group, 94.4% had complete occlusion. Of 32 patients receiving subsequent radiosurgery, 54.8% had complete occlusion, which was “a little bit disappointing,” said Dr. Spelle.
Overall, most patients (92.9%) had improved or stable mRS score. The overall mortality rate was 2.9%, and the rate of significant morbidity was 4.3%.
The rate of improved or stable mRS score was 94.3% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 85.7% for patients who also underwent neurosurgery, and 93.75% for patients who also underwent radiosurgery.
The mortality rate was 3.4% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 4.8% for patients who also underwent neurosurgery, and 0% for patients who also underwent radiosurgery.
The rate of significant morbidity was 2.3% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 9.5% for those who also underwent neurosurgery, and 6.25% for those who also underwent radiosurgery.
“We knew that this treatment was very effective, but this effectiveness was only known in a limited number of centers with a very high level of expertise,” said Dr. Spelle. “We were very pleasantly surprised that a larger-scale, multicenter study conducted in 15 different hospitals in France could achieve such a fantastic result.”
The study sites, however, were all departments in university hospitals with great experience in endovascular treatment of cAVM, he added.
Effective in unruptured AVMs?
Commenting on the findings, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, said: “Arteriovenous malformations remain a relatively uncommon but serious cerebrovascular disorder. Any additional tool in the armamentarium to treat these lesions is welcome.”
The study results are encouraging, said Dr. Elkind, who was not involved in the study. They suggest that Onyx embolization can play an important role in the care of these patients. The treatment is associated with “low morbidity and excellent efficacy, particularly in combination with other surgical and radiographic approaches.”
The lack of a direct comparison with alternative embolization materials is a limitation of the study, however. “It is hard to compare Onyx to other agents based on these results,” said Dr. Elkind.
“It is also notable that one-third of the patients in the study had unruptured AVMs, which at least in one randomized trial, ARUBA, were not clearly shown to benefit from an intervention at all,” he continued.
It would have been valuable for the researchers to stratify the study results by ruptured versus unruptured AVMs, Dr. Elkind said.
The study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Spelle reported receiving honoraria from the company. Dr. Elkind disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new observational data suggest. In a prospective, real-world study of more than 100 patients, use of the Onyx system was associated with a cure rate of 86% for cAVMs smaller than 3 cm.
“Endovascular treatment using Onyx is able to achieve, on its own, a very efficient cure rate with a low morbidity and mortality rate,” said investigator Laurent Spelle, MD, PhD, professor of neuroradiology at Paris-Saclay University and chair of NEURI, the Brain Vascular Center, Bicêtre Hospital, also in Paris.
Dr. Spelle presented the findings at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Prospective, multicenter study
Currently, the main treatment options for cAVM are embolization, neurosurgery, and radiosurgery. The Onyx liquid system, one method of providing embolization, uses a biocompatible ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer.
It has been used in Europe for 22 years as a curative treatment and as a treatment before radiosurgery or neurosurgery. In the United States, Onyx is indicated for presurgical and preradiotherapy treatment only.
For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of Onyx for the embolization of cAVM as curative treatment or preoperative preparation.
They enrolled 165 patients in the nonrandomized, observational study, which was conducted at 15 hospitals in France. Eligible participants had an untreated cAVM.
Patients were assigned to one of three groups, according to the hospital’s standard of care. One group underwent embolization with Onyx as curative treatment, one received Onyx as preparation for neurosurgery, and one underwent embolization with Onyx as preparation for radiosurgery.
The study’s safety endpoints were device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 1 month after each embolization. The efficacy endpoints were recovery at 12 months after the last embolization or neurosurgery, or at a minimum of 36 months after radiosurgery.
The researchers defined morbidity as a worsening of modified Rankin Scale score of 2 or more points for patients presenting with baseline mRS of 0 or 1, or a worsening of 1 or more points for patients with an mRS of 2 or greater at baseline. An independent clinical events committee and core laboratory adjudicated the results.
‘A fantastic result’
In all, 140 patients were prospectively included, and 212 embolization procedures were performed. The population’s mean age was 41.4 years, and 60% of participants were men. About 61% of patients presented with symptoms, the most common of which were progressive neurologic deficit (41.2%) and headache (36.5%).
Approximately 64% of the cAVMs were ruptured. Most (75.7%) were smaller than 3 cm, and the remainder were between 3 and 6 cm. Most patients (59.3%) did not have an aneurysm.
Eight (3.8%) adverse events were associated with the use of Onyx. The rate of procedure-related neurologic serious adverse events was 7.1% within 1 month post embolization. Three deaths occurred (2.1%), one of which was considered device or procedure related.
A total of 87 patients underwent embolization alone, 14 of whom did not complete the study (2 died, 5 were lost to follow-up, and 7 withdrew). Of the 73 who completed the study, 58 (79.5%) had complete occlusion and full recovery at last follow-up. An additional 6.8% had 99% occlusion.
In addition, 3.4% of the population had significant morbidity, and 18.4% presented at baseline with mRS scores of 3-5. Of the latter group, 81.3% had mRS scores of 0-2 at last visit.
Of 21 patients who underwent subsequent neurosurgery, 18 completed follow-up. Of this group, 94.4% had complete occlusion. Of 32 patients receiving subsequent radiosurgery, 54.8% had complete occlusion, which was “a little bit disappointing,” said Dr. Spelle.
Overall, most patients (92.9%) had improved or stable mRS score. The overall mortality rate was 2.9%, and the rate of significant morbidity was 4.3%.
The rate of improved or stable mRS score was 94.3% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 85.7% for patients who also underwent neurosurgery, and 93.75% for patients who also underwent radiosurgery.
The mortality rate was 3.4% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 4.8% for patients who also underwent neurosurgery, and 0% for patients who also underwent radiosurgery.
The rate of significant morbidity was 2.3% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 9.5% for those who also underwent neurosurgery, and 6.25% for those who also underwent radiosurgery.
“We knew that this treatment was very effective, but this effectiveness was only known in a limited number of centers with a very high level of expertise,” said Dr. Spelle. “We were very pleasantly surprised that a larger-scale, multicenter study conducted in 15 different hospitals in France could achieve such a fantastic result.”
The study sites, however, were all departments in university hospitals with great experience in endovascular treatment of cAVM, he added.
Effective in unruptured AVMs?
Commenting on the findings, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, said: “Arteriovenous malformations remain a relatively uncommon but serious cerebrovascular disorder. Any additional tool in the armamentarium to treat these lesions is welcome.”
The study results are encouraging, said Dr. Elkind, who was not involved in the study. They suggest that Onyx embolization can play an important role in the care of these patients. The treatment is associated with “low morbidity and excellent efficacy, particularly in combination with other surgical and radiographic approaches.”
The lack of a direct comparison with alternative embolization materials is a limitation of the study, however. “It is hard to compare Onyx to other agents based on these results,” said Dr. Elkind.
“It is also notable that one-third of the patients in the study had unruptured AVMs, which at least in one randomized trial, ARUBA, were not clearly shown to benefit from an intervention at all,” he continued.
It would have been valuable for the researchers to stratify the study results by ruptured versus unruptured AVMs, Dr. Elkind said.
The study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Spelle reported receiving honoraria from the company. Dr. Elkind disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new observational data suggest. In a prospective, real-world study of more than 100 patients, use of the Onyx system was associated with a cure rate of 86% for cAVMs smaller than 3 cm.
“Endovascular treatment using Onyx is able to achieve, on its own, a very efficient cure rate with a low morbidity and mortality rate,” said investigator Laurent Spelle, MD, PhD, professor of neuroradiology at Paris-Saclay University and chair of NEURI, the Brain Vascular Center, Bicêtre Hospital, also in Paris.
Dr. Spelle presented the findings at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Prospective, multicenter study
Currently, the main treatment options for cAVM are embolization, neurosurgery, and radiosurgery. The Onyx liquid system, one method of providing embolization, uses a biocompatible ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer.
It has been used in Europe for 22 years as a curative treatment and as a treatment before radiosurgery or neurosurgery. In the United States, Onyx is indicated for presurgical and preradiotherapy treatment only.
For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of Onyx for the embolization of cAVM as curative treatment or preoperative preparation.
They enrolled 165 patients in the nonrandomized, observational study, which was conducted at 15 hospitals in France. Eligible participants had an untreated cAVM.
Patients were assigned to one of three groups, according to the hospital’s standard of care. One group underwent embolization with Onyx as curative treatment, one received Onyx as preparation for neurosurgery, and one underwent embolization with Onyx as preparation for radiosurgery.
The study’s safety endpoints were device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 1 month after each embolization. The efficacy endpoints were recovery at 12 months after the last embolization or neurosurgery, or at a minimum of 36 months after radiosurgery.
The researchers defined morbidity as a worsening of modified Rankin Scale score of 2 or more points for patients presenting with baseline mRS of 0 or 1, or a worsening of 1 or more points for patients with an mRS of 2 or greater at baseline. An independent clinical events committee and core laboratory adjudicated the results.
‘A fantastic result’
In all, 140 patients were prospectively included, and 212 embolization procedures were performed. The population’s mean age was 41.4 years, and 60% of participants were men. About 61% of patients presented with symptoms, the most common of which were progressive neurologic deficit (41.2%) and headache (36.5%).
Approximately 64% of the cAVMs were ruptured. Most (75.7%) were smaller than 3 cm, and the remainder were between 3 and 6 cm. Most patients (59.3%) did not have an aneurysm.
Eight (3.8%) adverse events were associated with the use of Onyx. The rate of procedure-related neurologic serious adverse events was 7.1% within 1 month post embolization. Three deaths occurred (2.1%), one of which was considered device or procedure related.
A total of 87 patients underwent embolization alone, 14 of whom did not complete the study (2 died, 5 were lost to follow-up, and 7 withdrew). Of the 73 who completed the study, 58 (79.5%) had complete occlusion and full recovery at last follow-up. An additional 6.8% had 99% occlusion.
In addition, 3.4% of the population had significant morbidity, and 18.4% presented at baseline with mRS scores of 3-5. Of the latter group, 81.3% had mRS scores of 0-2 at last visit.
Of 21 patients who underwent subsequent neurosurgery, 18 completed follow-up. Of this group, 94.4% had complete occlusion. Of 32 patients receiving subsequent radiosurgery, 54.8% had complete occlusion, which was “a little bit disappointing,” said Dr. Spelle.
Overall, most patients (92.9%) had improved or stable mRS score. The overall mortality rate was 2.9%, and the rate of significant morbidity was 4.3%.
The rate of improved or stable mRS score was 94.3% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 85.7% for patients who also underwent neurosurgery, and 93.75% for patients who also underwent radiosurgery.
The mortality rate was 3.4% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 4.8% for patients who also underwent neurosurgery, and 0% for patients who also underwent radiosurgery.
The rate of significant morbidity was 2.3% for patients who underwent embolization alone, 9.5% for those who also underwent neurosurgery, and 6.25% for those who also underwent radiosurgery.
“We knew that this treatment was very effective, but this effectiveness was only known in a limited number of centers with a very high level of expertise,” said Dr. Spelle. “We were very pleasantly surprised that a larger-scale, multicenter study conducted in 15 different hospitals in France could achieve such a fantastic result.”
The study sites, however, were all departments in university hospitals with great experience in endovascular treatment of cAVM, he added.
Effective in unruptured AVMs?
Commenting on the findings, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, said: “Arteriovenous malformations remain a relatively uncommon but serious cerebrovascular disorder. Any additional tool in the armamentarium to treat these lesions is welcome.”
The study results are encouraging, said Dr. Elkind, who was not involved in the study. They suggest that Onyx embolization can play an important role in the care of these patients. The treatment is associated with “low morbidity and excellent efficacy, particularly in combination with other surgical and radiographic approaches.”
The lack of a direct comparison with alternative embolization materials is a limitation of the study, however. “It is hard to compare Onyx to other agents based on these results,” said Dr. Elkind.
“It is also notable that one-third of the patients in the study had unruptured AVMs, which at least in one randomized trial, ARUBA, were not clearly shown to benefit from an intervention at all,” he continued.
It would have been valuable for the researchers to stratify the study results by ruptured versus unruptured AVMs, Dr. Elkind said.
The study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Spelle reported receiving honoraria from the company. Dr. Elkind disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
More evidence links MI to cognitive decline over time
new research suggests.
Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.
The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”
The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.
The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study
About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.
They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.
The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”
This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.
The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.
The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.
The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.
As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.
After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.
However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.
Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).
Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.
She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”
The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.
The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.
Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.
MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.
“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”
In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.
The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”
The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.
The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study
About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.
They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.
The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”
This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.
The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.
The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.
The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.
As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.
After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.
However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.
Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).
Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.
She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”
The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.
The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.
Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.
MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.
“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”
In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.
The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”
The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.
The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study
About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.
They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.
The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”
This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.
The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.
The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.
The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.
As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.
After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.
However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.
Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).
Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.
She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”
The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.
The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.
Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.
MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.
“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”
In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Tenecteplase for stroke thrombolysis up to 24 hours?
, a new trial from China suggests.
The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.
“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.
Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.
Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.
For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.
The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.
In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.
In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).
“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”
The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.
Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”
He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.
“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”
Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”
The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new trial from China suggests.
The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.
“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.
Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.
Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.
For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.
The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.
In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.
In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).
“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”
The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.
Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”
He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.
“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”
Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”
The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new trial from China suggests.
The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.
“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.
Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.
Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.
For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.
The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.
In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.
In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).
“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”
The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.
Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”
He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.
“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”
Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”
The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Tirofiban does not improve outcomes of endovascular treatment in stroke
, new data suggest.
In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.
“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”
Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
Multicenter trial
Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.
Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.
Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.
At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.
The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
Increased ICH risk
The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).
The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”
The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).
In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.
“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”
The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
Patient selection crucial
Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.
“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.
The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.
The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.
The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.
“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”
Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
Multicenter trial
Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.
Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.
Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.
At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.
The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
Increased ICH risk
The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).
The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”
The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).
In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.
“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”
The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
Patient selection crucial
Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.
“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.
The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.
The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.
The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.
“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”
Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
Multicenter trial
Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.
Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.
Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.
At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.
The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
Increased ICH risk
The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).
The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”
The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).
In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.
“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”
The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
Patient selection crucial
Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.
“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.
The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.
The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.
The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
DOACs comparable to warfarin in CVT
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From ISC 2022
Stroke risk is highest right after COVID infection
, new research shows.
The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.
The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”
The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.
Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.
Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.
The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.
To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.
They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.
Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.
He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.
To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.
The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.
The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”
Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.
It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.
The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.
“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”
The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities.
Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.
The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.
The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.
Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.
In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.
“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”
There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.
The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”
The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.
Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.
Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.
The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.
To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.
They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.
Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.
He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.
To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.
The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.
The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”
Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.
It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.
The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.
“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”
The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities.
Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.
The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.
The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.
Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.
In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.
“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”
There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.
The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”
The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.
Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.
Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.
The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.
To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.
They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.
Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.
He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.
To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.
The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.
The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”
Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.
It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.
The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.
“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”
The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities.
Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.
The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.
The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.
Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.
In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.
“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”
There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Can periodontal treatment reduce cardiovascular events in stroke patients?
The first randomized trial to investigate whether periodontal treatment can reduce future risk of cardiovascular events or stroke suggests some promise with this strategy.
The PREMIERS study, which was conducted in patients with a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) who also had gum disease, did not show a statistically significant difference between intensive periodontal treatment and standard treatment in the rate of recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death in the 1-year follow-up, although there was a strong trend toward benefit in the intensive group.
Both groups had a much lower event rate compared with a historical control group made up of similar patients.
In addition, the number of dental visits significantly correlated with a reduction in the composite event rate in the study.
“My take-home message from this study is that periodontal treatment does appear to impact cardiovascular outcomes in stroke/TIA patients,” said lead author Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, professor of neurology at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
“Even standard periodontal care – a dental cleaning every 3 months – was beneficial.”
Dr. Sen presented the study at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC), taking place in New Orleans and virtually.
“This was a very ambitious study, and it turned out to be very underpowered for the comparisons involved, but I was impressed that we saw such a strong trend toward benefit in the intensive group,” he said at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Sen explained that they initially set out to compare periodontal treatment with no treatment, but they were unable to have a control group who received no treatment for ethical reasons, so they ended up comparing standard treatment with intensive treatment.
“We probably needed a study of twice the size for that comparison. But our results are encouraging, and we now plan to do a larger study,” he said.
Dr. Sen reported that gum disease (periodontitis) is extremely prevalent, occurring in around half the U.S. population. It is particularly prevalent in the southeastern part of the United States, known as the “Stroke Belt” because of a much higher incidence of stroke compared with the rest of the country. Gum disease is known to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and stroke.
For the study, 280 patients from the Stroke Belt area with a recent stroke or TIA and periodontal disease were randomly assigned to standard periodontal treatment or intensive periodontal treatment and followed for 1 year.
Standard treatment was composed of regular (every 3 months) supragingival removal of plaque and calculus; patients were also given a regular toothbrush and advice about dental care.
The intensive group received supragingival and subgingival removal of plaque and calculus (also every 3 months), extraction of hopeless teeth, locally delivered antibiotics. In addition, patients were given an electric toothbrush, mouthwash, and an air flosser for dental care.
All patients received comprehensive conventional stroke risk factor treatment.
The study had an adaptive randomization design to ensure both groups were balanced in terms of age, stroke causes, race, socioeconomic status, and stroke risk factors.
Results showed that after 1 year of follow-up, the primary outcome (stroke/myocardial infarction/death) had occurred in 7.7% of the intensive treatment group versus 12.3% of the standard care group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.38; P = .26).
But both groups had a much lower rate of recurrent events, compared with a historical control group which showed a 1-year rate of stroke/MI/death of 24%. The historical controls were part of an observational study that the same group of researchers conducted previously in a similar population.
In both standard treatment and intensive treatment groups, the combined number of dental visits strongly correlated with a reduction in cardiovascular events. Of the study participants, 65% attended all five visits, 25% attended two to four, and 10% did not attend any after the baseline assessment.
Those who attended all visits in the year had a rate of stroke/MI/death at 1 year of 8%. And those who did not attend any further visits after the baseline visit had an event rate of 25% at 1-year follow-up, which Dr. Sen noted was very similar to that of the historical controls. The P value for this trend was “very significant” (P = .0017), he said.
Secondary outcomes showed a reduction in blood pressure, A1c levels, carotid intima-media thickness, and better lipid profiles in all patients who underwent treatment – in both standard treatment and intensive treatment.
A new part of routine post-stroke care?
“Previous data on how gum disease and periodontal treatment relates to cardiovascular outcomes have all come from observational studies. They have shown that regular dental care is associated with reduced incidence of future cardiovascular events. But until now, we haven’t had any randomized data,” Dr. Sen noted.
He believes advice on oral and dental care should be part of routine clinical practice for patients who have suffered stroke. “This is not something we currently think about, but it could make a big difference in future event rates.”
Dr. Sen said the current study had raised interest in the topic, and his presentation was received with enthusiasm from the audience.
“We are in South Carolina in the Stroke Belt. Previous studies have shown that gum disease is very prevalent in this area. People in this area have a high risk of stroke, but we don’t know all the attributable risk factors. The traditional stroke risk factors do not seem to account for all the excess risk,” Dr. Sen said. “Periodontal disease could be one of the additional risk factors that accounts for the increased stroke risk in this population.”
“I believe doctors treating stroke patients should advise that they pay particular attention to oral care and visit the dentist frequently for periodontal treatment if they have gum disease. It is very unusual for people to get regular dental cleaning. They don’t understand that they need to do this,” he said.
But he acknowledges that larger studies are needed to show statistically significant results to be able to achieve a strong recommendation in the secondary prevention clinical guidelines.
“Even in individuals who haven’t had a stroke or cardiovascular event, population-based observational studies clearly show that gum infection is linked to future risk of myocardial infarction and stroke and that regular dental care (one or more visits per year) can reduce this risk. I don’t think we can do a randomized trial in the general population – that would need enormous numbers. We will have to rely on the observational studies here,” he added.
‘Promising’ results
Commenting on the current study, Louise McCullough, MD, ISC 2022 program chair, said she thought the results were promising.
“There was no difference in the intensive cleaning group versus standard cleaning, but the number of events was small, so it was underpowered to see differences. I think the main take home point is that both groups that came for dental visits had a much lower risk of another event than the group that did not show up for follow-up,” said Dr. McCullough, chair of the department of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “Clearly, seeing a provider made a difference. It is likely that contact with a dentist, getting blood pressure checked, etc., made a dramatic difference.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Minority Health Disparity, Phillips Oral Healthcare, and Orapharma (which provided the study antibiotic medication).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first randomized trial to investigate whether periodontal treatment can reduce future risk of cardiovascular events or stroke suggests some promise with this strategy.
The PREMIERS study, which was conducted in patients with a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) who also had gum disease, did not show a statistically significant difference between intensive periodontal treatment and standard treatment in the rate of recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death in the 1-year follow-up, although there was a strong trend toward benefit in the intensive group.
Both groups had a much lower event rate compared with a historical control group made up of similar patients.
In addition, the number of dental visits significantly correlated with a reduction in the composite event rate in the study.
“My take-home message from this study is that periodontal treatment does appear to impact cardiovascular outcomes in stroke/TIA patients,” said lead author Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, professor of neurology at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
“Even standard periodontal care – a dental cleaning every 3 months – was beneficial.”
Dr. Sen presented the study at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC), taking place in New Orleans and virtually.
“This was a very ambitious study, and it turned out to be very underpowered for the comparisons involved, but I was impressed that we saw such a strong trend toward benefit in the intensive group,” he said at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Sen explained that they initially set out to compare periodontal treatment with no treatment, but they were unable to have a control group who received no treatment for ethical reasons, so they ended up comparing standard treatment with intensive treatment.
“We probably needed a study of twice the size for that comparison. But our results are encouraging, and we now plan to do a larger study,” he said.
Dr. Sen reported that gum disease (periodontitis) is extremely prevalent, occurring in around half the U.S. population. It is particularly prevalent in the southeastern part of the United States, known as the “Stroke Belt” because of a much higher incidence of stroke compared with the rest of the country. Gum disease is known to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and stroke.
For the study, 280 patients from the Stroke Belt area with a recent stroke or TIA and periodontal disease were randomly assigned to standard periodontal treatment or intensive periodontal treatment and followed for 1 year.
Standard treatment was composed of regular (every 3 months) supragingival removal of plaque and calculus; patients were also given a regular toothbrush and advice about dental care.
The intensive group received supragingival and subgingival removal of plaque and calculus (also every 3 months), extraction of hopeless teeth, locally delivered antibiotics. In addition, patients were given an electric toothbrush, mouthwash, and an air flosser for dental care.
All patients received comprehensive conventional stroke risk factor treatment.
The study had an adaptive randomization design to ensure both groups were balanced in terms of age, stroke causes, race, socioeconomic status, and stroke risk factors.
Results showed that after 1 year of follow-up, the primary outcome (stroke/myocardial infarction/death) had occurred in 7.7% of the intensive treatment group versus 12.3% of the standard care group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.38; P = .26).
But both groups had a much lower rate of recurrent events, compared with a historical control group which showed a 1-year rate of stroke/MI/death of 24%. The historical controls were part of an observational study that the same group of researchers conducted previously in a similar population.
In both standard treatment and intensive treatment groups, the combined number of dental visits strongly correlated with a reduction in cardiovascular events. Of the study participants, 65% attended all five visits, 25% attended two to four, and 10% did not attend any after the baseline assessment.
Those who attended all visits in the year had a rate of stroke/MI/death at 1 year of 8%. And those who did not attend any further visits after the baseline visit had an event rate of 25% at 1-year follow-up, which Dr. Sen noted was very similar to that of the historical controls. The P value for this trend was “very significant” (P = .0017), he said.
Secondary outcomes showed a reduction in blood pressure, A1c levels, carotid intima-media thickness, and better lipid profiles in all patients who underwent treatment – in both standard treatment and intensive treatment.
A new part of routine post-stroke care?
“Previous data on how gum disease and periodontal treatment relates to cardiovascular outcomes have all come from observational studies. They have shown that regular dental care is associated with reduced incidence of future cardiovascular events. But until now, we haven’t had any randomized data,” Dr. Sen noted.
He believes advice on oral and dental care should be part of routine clinical practice for patients who have suffered stroke. “This is not something we currently think about, but it could make a big difference in future event rates.”
Dr. Sen said the current study had raised interest in the topic, and his presentation was received with enthusiasm from the audience.
“We are in South Carolina in the Stroke Belt. Previous studies have shown that gum disease is very prevalent in this area. People in this area have a high risk of stroke, but we don’t know all the attributable risk factors. The traditional stroke risk factors do not seem to account for all the excess risk,” Dr. Sen said. “Periodontal disease could be one of the additional risk factors that accounts for the increased stroke risk in this population.”
“I believe doctors treating stroke patients should advise that they pay particular attention to oral care and visit the dentist frequently for periodontal treatment if they have gum disease. It is very unusual for people to get regular dental cleaning. They don’t understand that they need to do this,” he said.
But he acknowledges that larger studies are needed to show statistically significant results to be able to achieve a strong recommendation in the secondary prevention clinical guidelines.
“Even in individuals who haven’t had a stroke or cardiovascular event, population-based observational studies clearly show that gum infection is linked to future risk of myocardial infarction and stroke and that regular dental care (one or more visits per year) can reduce this risk. I don’t think we can do a randomized trial in the general population – that would need enormous numbers. We will have to rely on the observational studies here,” he added.
‘Promising’ results
Commenting on the current study, Louise McCullough, MD, ISC 2022 program chair, said she thought the results were promising.
“There was no difference in the intensive cleaning group versus standard cleaning, but the number of events was small, so it was underpowered to see differences. I think the main take home point is that both groups that came for dental visits had a much lower risk of another event than the group that did not show up for follow-up,” said Dr. McCullough, chair of the department of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “Clearly, seeing a provider made a difference. It is likely that contact with a dentist, getting blood pressure checked, etc., made a dramatic difference.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Minority Health Disparity, Phillips Oral Healthcare, and Orapharma (which provided the study antibiotic medication).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first randomized trial to investigate whether periodontal treatment can reduce future risk of cardiovascular events or stroke suggests some promise with this strategy.
The PREMIERS study, which was conducted in patients with a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) who also had gum disease, did not show a statistically significant difference between intensive periodontal treatment and standard treatment in the rate of recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death in the 1-year follow-up, although there was a strong trend toward benefit in the intensive group.
Both groups had a much lower event rate compared with a historical control group made up of similar patients.
In addition, the number of dental visits significantly correlated with a reduction in the composite event rate in the study.
“My take-home message from this study is that periodontal treatment does appear to impact cardiovascular outcomes in stroke/TIA patients,” said lead author Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, professor of neurology at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
“Even standard periodontal care – a dental cleaning every 3 months – was beneficial.”
Dr. Sen presented the study at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC), taking place in New Orleans and virtually.
“This was a very ambitious study, and it turned out to be very underpowered for the comparisons involved, but I was impressed that we saw such a strong trend toward benefit in the intensive group,” he said at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Sen explained that they initially set out to compare periodontal treatment with no treatment, but they were unable to have a control group who received no treatment for ethical reasons, so they ended up comparing standard treatment with intensive treatment.
“We probably needed a study of twice the size for that comparison. But our results are encouraging, and we now plan to do a larger study,” he said.
Dr. Sen reported that gum disease (periodontitis) is extremely prevalent, occurring in around half the U.S. population. It is particularly prevalent in the southeastern part of the United States, known as the “Stroke Belt” because of a much higher incidence of stroke compared with the rest of the country. Gum disease is known to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and stroke.
For the study, 280 patients from the Stroke Belt area with a recent stroke or TIA and periodontal disease were randomly assigned to standard periodontal treatment or intensive periodontal treatment and followed for 1 year.
Standard treatment was composed of regular (every 3 months) supragingival removal of plaque and calculus; patients were also given a regular toothbrush and advice about dental care.
The intensive group received supragingival and subgingival removal of plaque and calculus (also every 3 months), extraction of hopeless teeth, locally delivered antibiotics. In addition, patients were given an electric toothbrush, mouthwash, and an air flosser for dental care.
All patients received comprehensive conventional stroke risk factor treatment.
The study had an adaptive randomization design to ensure both groups were balanced in terms of age, stroke causes, race, socioeconomic status, and stroke risk factors.
Results showed that after 1 year of follow-up, the primary outcome (stroke/myocardial infarction/death) had occurred in 7.7% of the intensive treatment group versus 12.3% of the standard care group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.38; P = .26).
But both groups had a much lower rate of recurrent events, compared with a historical control group which showed a 1-year rate of stroke/MI/death of 24%. The historical controls were part of an observational study that the same group of researchers conducted previously in a similar population.
In both standard treatment and intensive treatment groups, the combined number of dental visits strongly correlated with a reduction in cardiovascular events. Of the study participants, 65% attended all five visits, 25% attended two to four, and 10% did not attend any after the baseline assessment.
Those who attended all visits in the year had a rate of stroke/MI/death at 1 year of 8%. And those who did not attend any further visits after the baseline visit had an event rate of 25% at 1-year follow-up, which Dr. Sen noted was very similar to that of the historical controls. The P value for this trend was “very significant” (P = .0017), he said.
Secondary outcomes showed a reduction in blood pressure, A1c levels, carotid intima-media thickness, and better lipid profiles in all patients who underwent treatment – in both standard treatment and intensive treatment.
A new part of routine post-stroke care?
“Previous data on how gum disease and periodontal treatment relates to cardiovascular outcomes have all come from observational studies. They have shown that regular dental care is associated with reduced incidence of future cardiovascular events. But until now, we haven’t had any randomized data,” Dr. Sen noted.
He believes advice on oral and dental care should be part of routine clinical practice for patients who have suffered stroke. “This is not something we currently think about, but it could make a big difference in future event rates.”
Dr. Sen said the current study had raised interest in the topic, and his presentation was received with enthusiasm from the audience.
“We are in South Carolina in the Stroke Belt. Previous studies have shown that gum disease is very prevalent in this area. People in this area have a high risk of stroke, but we don’t know all the attributable risk factors. The traditional stroke risk factors do not seem to account for all the excess risk,” Dr. Sen said. “Periodontal disease could be one of the additional risk factors that accounts for the increased stroke risk in this population.”
“I believe doctors treating stroke patients should advise that they pay particular attention to oral care and visit the dentist frequently for periodontal treatment if they have gum disease. It is very unusual for people to get regular dental cleaning. They don’t understand that they need to do this,” he said.
But he acknowledges that larger studies are needed to show statistically significant results to be able to achieve a strong recommendation in the secondary prevention clinical guidelines.
“Even in individuals who haven’t had a stroke or cardiovascular event, population-based observational studies clearly show that gum infection is linked to future risk of myocardial infarction and stroke and that regular dental care (one or more visits per year) can reduce this risk. I don’t think we can do a randomized trial in the general population – that would need enormous numbers. We will have to rely on the observational studies here,” he added.
‘Promising’ results
Commenting on the current study, Louise McCullough, MD, ISC 2022 program chair, said she thought the results were promising.
“There was no difference in the intensive cleaning group versus standard cleaning, but the number of events was small, so it was underpowered to see differences. I think the main take home point is that both groups that came for dental visits had a much lower risk of another event than the group that did not show up for follow-up,” said Dr. McCullough, chair of the department of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “Clearly, seeing a provider made a difference. It is likely that contact with a dentist, getting blood pressure checked, etc., made a dramatic difference.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Minority Health Disparity, Phillips Oral Healthcare, and Orapharma (which provided the study antibiotic medication).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Tenecteplase for stroke linked to reduced ICH risk
preliminary results from a large, multicenter registry study suggest.
“In clinical practice where centers are using tenecteplase, we’re seeing that the rate of symptomatic hemorrhage after getting a thrombolytic is half that with tenecteplase than with alteplase,” said lead author Steven J. Warach, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin.
“For clinicians who have switched or are considering switching to tenecteplase, I think these results are very reassuring,” he said at the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Tenecteplase is a relatively new agent that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat myocardial infarction but not ischemic stroke, although clinicians sometimes use it off-label for this purpose. American Heart Association guidelines recommend tenecteplase might be reasonable to consider for ischemic stroke in select patients.
The current standard of care for stroke is alteplase, which has been approved for this indication since 1996.
Five randomized clinical trials comparing the two thrombolytics weren’t large enough to make definitive conclusions about differences, said Dr. Warach. “The event rate for serious bleeding into the brain was thankfully low in both groups.”
Results from a meta-analysis that combined data from those five trials were also not definitive. “Numerically, it looked like the rate was lower for tenecteplase, but the sample size was just too low to make any statistically confident statement.”
However, tenecteplase has practical advantages over alteplase. Tenecteplase is a single bolus injection lasting 5 seconds while alteplase is administered by injection followed by an hour-long infusion.
Given these potential advantages, some centers have changed their practice and started using the newer drug beginning in July 2018.
The current study used an ongoing large registry to compare rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients treated with either of these drugs. The registry includes data collected July 2018 to June 2021 from various hospitals and programs in New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S.
Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was defined as a severe bleed causing pressure on the brain, extensive swelling, and worsening by at least four points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
Researchers abstracted data from the various registries. As not all centers record data in the same format, statisticians then “cleaned” or harmonized the data to make it more standardized, said Dr. Warach.
They controlled for factors known to put a patient at higher risk for symptomatic hemorrhage, including age, sex, baseline NIHSS, and time to treatment.
Dr. Warach noted that at baseline, the tenecteplase group had higher values on most of these factors “that would predict intracranial hemorrhage.”
In an earlier analysis of 7,891 patients, the tenecteplase group was older (73 vs. 70 years; P < .001), less likely to be female (44.1% vs. 48.7%; P = .001), and had higher NIHSS scores (9 vs. 7; P < .001).
Also, a greater percentage of those in the tenecteplase group underwent mechanical thrombectomy (36.7% vs. 18.0%; P < .001). Dr. Warach explained that some centers would opt for tenecteplase if they knew the patient was a candidate for thrombectomy “because that was where the data was clearly strong and positive.”
An updated analysis included 9,238 patients – 7,313 who received alteplase and 1,925 tenecteplase. In the updated unadjusted analysis, the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 3.6% for alteplase and 1.8% for tenecteplase (odds ratio, 0.49; P < .001). The adjusted OR was 0.42 (P < .001.)
The difference was even greater in those who underwent thrombectomy. For patients undergoing this procedure after a thrombolytic, the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 5.9% for alteplase and 2.4% for tenecteplase.
“That even in those higher-risk patients we’re seeing an even greater difference is promising,” said Dr. Warach.
He and his colleagues plan to assess other potential benefits of tenecteplase, for example, the time it takes for patients to recover, “once we have all the data standardized and cleaned.”
Results of three large phase 3 trials comparing the two thrombolytics are expected within the next year or two, said Dr. Warach.
Joseph Broderick, MD, professor and director of the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute, director of the National Coordinating Center for NIH’s StrokeNet, and professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, stressed that for both drugs, speed is of the utmost importance to protect the brain.
“No matter which of these drugs is going to be used, the key thing is that they have to be used as quickly as possible,” he said.
Also important is imaging the brain before administering either of these medications to ensure the issue is an ischemic stroke and not an intracerebral hemorrhage, said Dr. Broderick. “If you have a broken blood vessel, you want to seal the leak, not break up the clot and make the bleeding worse.”
Dr. Warach receives payment as chair of the safety committee of another Genentech study comparing tenecteplase versus placebo in patients with large vessel occlusion whose stroke began more than 4.5 hours before treatment.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
preliminary results from a large, multicenter registry study suggest.
“In clinical practice where centers are using tenecteplase, we’re seeing that the rate of symptomatic hemorrhage after getting a thrombolytic is half that with tenecteplase than with alteplase,” said lead author Steven J. Warach, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin.
“For clinicians who have switched or are considering switching to tenecteplase, I think these results are very reassuring,” he said at the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Tenecteplase is a relatively new agent that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat myocardial infarction but not ischemic stroke, although clinicians sometimes use it off-label for this purpose. American Heart Association guidelines recommend tenecteplase might be reasonable to consider for ischemic stroke in select patients.
The current standard of care for stroke is alteplase, which has been approved for this indication since 1996.
Five randomized clinical trials comparing the two thrombolytics weren’t large enough to make definitive conclusions about differences, said Dr. Warach. “The event rate for serious bleeding into the brain was thankfully low in both groups.”
Results from a meta-analysis that combined data from those five trials were also not definitive. “Numerically, it looked like the rate was lower for tenecteplase, but the sample size was just too low to make any statistically confident statement.”
However, tenecteplase has practical advantages over alteplase. Tenecteplase is a single bolus injection lasting 5 seconds while alteplase is administered by injection followed by an hour-long infusion.
Given these potential advantages, some centers have changed their practice and started using the newer drug beginning in July 2018.
The current study used an ongoing large registry to compare rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients treated with either of these drugs. The registry includes data collected July 2018 to June 2021 from various hospitals and programs in New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S.
Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was defined as a severe bleed causing pressure on the brain, extensive swelling, and worsening by at least four points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
Researchers abstracted data from the various registries. As not all centers record data in the same format, statisticians then “cleaned” or harmonized the data to make it more standardized, said Dr. Warach.
They controlled for factors known to put a patient at higher risk for symptomatic hemorrhage, including age, sex, baseline NIHSS, and time to treatment.
Dr. Warach noted that at baseline, the tenecteplase group had higher values on most of these factors “that would predict intracranial hemorrhage.”
In an earlier analysis of 7,891 patients, the tenecteplase group was older (73 vs. 70 years; P < .001), less likely to be female (44.1% vs. 48.7%; P = .001), and had higher NIHSS scores (9 vs. 7; P < .001).
Also, a greater percentage of those in the tenecteplase group underwent mechanical thrombectomy (36.7% vs. 18.0%; P < .001). Dr. Warach explained that some centers would opt for tenecteplase if they knew the patient was a candidate for thrombectomy “because that was where the data was clearly strong and positive.”
An updated analysis included 9,238 patients – 7,313 who received alteplase and 1,925 tenecteplase. In the updated unadjusted analysis, the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 3.6% for alteplase and 1.8% for tenecteplase (odds ratio, 0.49; P < .001). The adjusted OR was 0.42 (P < .001.)
The difference was even greater in those who underwent thrombectomy. For patients undergoing this procedure after a thrombolytic, the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 5.9% for alteplase and 2.4% for tenecteplase.
“That even in those higher-risk patients we’re seeing an even greater difference is promising,” said Dr. Warach.
He and his colleagues plan to assess other potential benefits of tenecteplase, for example, the time it takes for patients to recover, “once we have all the data standardized and cleaned.”
Results of three large phase 3 trials comparing the two thrombolytics are expected within the next year or two, said Dr. Warach.
Joseph Broderick, MD, professor and director of the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute, director of the National Coordinating Center for NIH’s StrokeNet, and professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, stressed that for both drugs, speed is of the utmost importance to protect the brain.
“No matter which of these drugs is going to be used, the key thing is that they have to be used as quickly as possible,” he said.
Also important is imaging the brain before administering either of these medications to ensure the issue is an ischemic stroke and not an intracerebral hemorrhage, said Dr. Broderick. “If you have a broken blood vessel, you want to seal the leak, not break up the clot and make the bleeding worse.”
Dr. Warach receives payment as chair of the safety committee of another Genentech study comparing tenecteplase versus placebo in patients with large vessel occlusion whose stroke began more than 4.5 hours before treatment.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
preliminary results from a large, multicenter registry study suggest.
“In clinical practice where centers are using tenecteplase, we’re seeing that the rate of symptomatic hemorrhage after getting a thrombolytic is half that with tenecteplase than with alteplase,” said lead author Steven J. Warach, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin.
“For clinicians who have switched or are considering switching to tenecteplase, I think these results are very reassuring,” he said at the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Tenecteplase is a relatively new agent that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat myocardial infarction but not ischemic stroke, although clinicians sometimes use it off-label for this purpose. American Heart Association guidelines recommend tenecteplase might be reasonable to consider for ischemic stroke in select patients.
The current standard of care for stroke is alteplase, which has been approved for this indication since 1996.
Five randomized clinical trials comparing the two thrombolytics weren’t large enough to make definitive conclusions about differences, said Dr. Warach. “The event rate for serious bleeding into the brain was thankfully low in both groups.”
Results from a meta-analysis that combined data from those five trials were also not definitive. “Numerically, it looked like the rate was lower for tenecteplase, but the sample size was just too low to make any statistically confident statement.”
However, tenecteplase has practical advantages over alteplase. Tenecteplase is a single bolus injection lasting 5 seconds while alteplase is administered by injection followed by an hour-long infusion.
Given these potential advantages, some centers have changed their practice and started using the newer drug beginning in July 2018.
The current study used an ongoing large registry to compare rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients treated with either of these drugs. The registry includes data collected July 2018 to June 2021 from various hospitals and programs in New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S.
Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was defined as a severe bleed causing pressure on the brain, extensive swelling, and worsening by at least four points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
Researchers abstracted data from the various registries. As not all centers record data in the same format, statisticians then “cleaned” or harmonized the data to make it more standardized, said Dr. Warach.
They controlled for factors known to put a patient at higher risk for symptomatic hemorrhage, including age, sex, baseline NIHSS, and time to treatment.
Dr. Warach noted that at baseline, the tenecteplase group had higher values on most of these factors “that would predict intracranial hemorrhage.”
In an earlier analysis of 7,891 patients, the tenecteplase group was older (73 vs. 70 years; P < .001), less likely to be female (44.1% vs. 48.7%; P = .001), and had higher NIHSS scores (9 vs. 7; P < .001).
Also, a greater percentage of those in the tenecteplase group underwent mechanical thrombectomy (36.7% vs. 18.0%; P < .001). Dr. Warach explained that some centers would opt for tenecteplase if they knew the patient was a candidate for thrombectomy “because that was where the data was clearly strong and positive.”
An updated analysis included 9,238 patients – 7,313 who received alteplase and 1,925 tenecteplase. In the updated unadjusted analysis, the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 3.6% for alteplase and 1.8% for tenecteplase (odds ratio, 0.49; P < .001). The adjusted OR was 0.42 (P < .001.)
The difference was even greater in those who underwent thrombectomy. For patients undergoing this procedure after a thrombolytic, the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 5.9% for alteplase and 2.4% for tenecteplase.
“That even in those higher-risk patients we’re seeing an even greater difference is promising,” said Dr. Warach.
He and his colleagues plan to assess other potential benefits of tenecteplase, for example, the time it takes for patients to recover, “once we have all the data standardized and cleaned.”
Results of three large phase 3 trials comparing the two thrombolytics are expected within the next year or two, said Dr. Warach.
Joseph Broderick, MD, professor and director of the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute, director of the National Coordinating Center for NIH’s StrokeNet, and professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, stressed that for both drugs, speed is of the utmost importance to protect the brain.
“No matter which of these drugs is going to be used, the key thing is that they have to be used as quickly as possible,” he said.
Also important is imaging the brain before administering either of these medications to ensure the issue is an ischemic stroke and not an intracerebral hemorrhage, said Dr. Broderick. “If you have a broken blood vessel, you want to seal the leak, not break up the clot and make the bleeding worse.”
Dr. Warach receives payment as chair of the safety committee of another Genentech study comparing tenecteplase versus placebo in patients with large vessel occlusion whose stroke began more than 4.5 hours before treatment.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
‘Remarkable’ benefit with intra-arterial tPA after stroke thrombectomy: CHOICE
in a new study.
The phase 2b CHOICE study was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Ángel Chamorro, MD, University of Barcelona, who received a round of applause as the results were revealed.
The study was also published online in JAMA to coincide with the presentation at the ISC.
The main results showed a remarkable and significant 18.4% absolute increase in the number of patients achieving an excellent neurologic outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1, after treatment with intra-arterial alteplase immediately following thrombectomy. This was despite the fact that the study was stopped early because of difficulty obtaining placebo supplies during the pandemic, having only enrolled 121 of the planned 200 patients.
This benefit was achieved without any increase in intracranial hemorrhage, which Dr. Chamorro described as “reassuring.”
He explained that although mechanical thrombectomy gives a high rate of successful reperfusion, only about 27% of patients achieve complete freedom of disability (mRS 0-1) at 3 months. He suggested that this may be the result of impaired reperfusion of the microcirculation despite complete recanalization of the occluded vessel.
The researchers postulated that thrombi could persist within the microcirculation in patients with normal or nearly normal cerebral angiograms at the end of thrombectomy and that these smaller thrombi may be dissolved by a dose of intra-arterial thrombolysis.
‘Dramatic and exciting results’
The CHOICE study was greeted with enthusiasm from commentators at the ISC meeting, which was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association. Louise McCullough, MD, chair of the late-breaking science session at which the study was presented and ISC program chair, described the results as “very dramatic and very exciting.”
“The CHOICE trial is going to be a highlight of the meeting because it could change care now,” Dr. McCullough said. “By just giving a little adjunctive tPA after the main clot is out, everybody seems to benefit, and there was no increased risk in bleeding. I think that’s the one that people are going to take back to their practice. But it was a very small trial, so you have to be cautious.”
And Peter Panagos, MD, professor of emergency medicine and neurology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, said: “It’s great to see this study. The 18% treatment effect is very impressive.”
Dr. Panagos added: “This study addresses a well-described finding from many of the interventional trials, that despite excellent outcomes in recanalization, patients don’t do as well as predicted. The thought is that either re-stenosis or propagation of smaller clots downstream from the original clot in small-caliber vessels [is what] causes additional, unintended damage. The use of intra-arterial thrombolysis after recanalization may assist in dissolving those smaller, downstream clots and debris and improve outcomes.”
But he pointed out that enthusiasm over these results must be matched with some concerns, including the small study size and wide confidence intervals – so larger, randomized studies will be required to confirm and change current clinical practice.
An abbreviated phase 2b trial
The CHOICE trial was conducted in seven centers in Catalonia, Spain.
For the study, patients with large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke treated with thrombectomy within 24 hours after stroke onset and who had achieved successful reperfusion (an expanded TICI angiographic score of 2b50 to 3) were randomly assigned to receive intra-arterial alteplase (0.225 mg/kg; maximum dose, 22.5 mg) infused over 15 to 30 minutes or placebo.
Because of the lack of continued availability of placebo supplies, the study had to be stopped early after 121 patients were enrolled (65 alteplase; 56 placebo), and after a few dropouts who did not receive treatment, the analysis was performed on 61 patients who received alteplase and 52 given placebo.
Results showed that the proportion of patients with an mRS score of 0 or 1 at 90 days was 59% (36/61) with alteplase and 40.4% (21/52) with placebo (adjusted risk difference, 18.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%-36.4%; P = .047).
The proportion of patients with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 24 hours was 0% with alteplase and 3.8% with placebo (risk difference, −3.8%; 95% CI, −13.2% to 2.5%).
Mortality at 90 days was 8% with alteplase and 15% with placebo (risk difference, −7.2%; 95% CI, −19.2% to 4.8%).
The improved clinical outcomes in the alteplase group were seen despite only minor differences between the treatment groups in angiographic scores or in other surrogate imaging, Dr. Chamorro pointed out, suggesting that the improved functional outcome may be explained by an amelioration in the microcirculatory reperfusion.
He said the study also supported the safety of intra-arterial alteplase infusion for 15-30 minutes at the dose used. Of note, 60% of the study population had also received IV alteplase before thrombectomy.
In the JAMA study, the authors report that current guidelines recommend that all eligible patients receive intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy, and the results of this trial do not contradict this recommendation.
“The study results support the safety of adjunct intra-arterial alteplase in patients with successful reperfusion at the end of thrombectomy, including in patients treated previously with intravenous alteplase, although the findings on effectiveness should be interpreted as preliminary, requiring replication before any recommendations for practice change,” they concluded.
Dr. Chamorro said that his group was now planning a second larger trial, CHOICE-2.
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA, Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, University of Cincinnati, said “the 18% treatment effect observed in this 113-patient trial is remarkable.”
However, she cautions that consideration of its clinical implications must be tempered because of the lack of precision of the effect estimate, given wide 95% confidence intervals, the small sample size, and the observation that trials with early termination are well known to overestimate treatment effect.
But she acknowledges that the results suggest “that additional reperfusion therapy may be warranted after relatively successful mechanical thrombectomy of large vessel occlusions, whether to treat the residual primary thrombus, more distal arterial occlusions, or perhaps even microthromboses.”
Dr. Khatri noted that this approach runs counter to the recent movement to consider bypass of intravenous alteplase altogether in thrombectomy-eligible patients and suggests that additional or perhaps more targeted thrombolysis will be the most beneficial approach.
Further studies testing current thrombolytic agents, novel clot-dissolving agents, and other adjunctive antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory agents are needed, she concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new study.
The phase 2b CHOICE study was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Ángel Chamorro, MD, University of Barcelona, who received a round of applause as the results were revealed.
The study was also published online in JAMA to coincide with the presentation at the ISC.
The main results showed a remarkable and significant 18.4% absolute increase in the number of patients achieving an excellent neurologic outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1, after treatment with intra-arterial alteplase immediately following thrombectomy. This was despite the fact that the study was stopped early because of difficulty obtaining placebo supplies during the pandemic, having only enrolled 121 of the planned 200 patients.
This benefit was achieved without any increase in intracranial hemorrhage, which Dr. Chamorro described as “reassuring.”
He explained that although mechanical thrombectomy gives a high rate of successful reperfusion, only about 27% of patients achieve complete freedom of disability (mRS 0-1) at 3 months. He suggested that this may be the result of impaired reperfusion of the microcirculation despite complete recanalization of the occluded vessel.
The researchers postulated that thrombi could persist within the microcirculation in patients with normal or nearly normal cerebral angiograms at the end of thrombectomy and that these smaller thrombi may be dissolved by a dose of intra-arterial thrombolysis.
‘Dramatic and exciting results’
The CHOICE study was greeted with enthusiasm from commentators at the ISC meeting, which was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association. Louise McCullough, MD, chair of the late-breaking science session at which the study was presented and ISC program chair, described the results as “very dramatic and very exciting.”
“The CHOICE trial is going to be a highlight of the meeting because it could change care now,” Dr. McCullough said. “By just giving a little adjunctive tPA after the main clot is out, everybody seems to benefit, and there was no increased risk in bleeding. I think that’s the one that people are going to take back to their practice. But it was a very small trial, so you have to be cautious.”
And Peter Panagos, MD, professor of emergency medicine and neurology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, said: “It’s great to see this study. The 18% treatment effect is very impressive.”
Dr. Panagos added: “This study addresses a well-described finding from many of the interventional trials, that despite excellent outcomes in recanalization, patients don’t do as well as predicted. The thought is that either re-stenosis or propagation of smaller clots downstream from the original clot in small-caliber vessels [is what] causes additional, unintended damage. The use of intra-arterial thrombolysis after recanalization may assist in dissolving those smaller, downstream clots and debris and improve outcomes.”
But he pointed out that enthusiasm over these results must be matched with some concerns, including the small study size and wide confidence intervals – so larger, randomized studies will be required to confirm and change current clinical practice.
An abbreviated phase 2b trial
The CHOICE trial was conducted in seven centers in Catalonia, Spain.
For the study, patients with large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke treated with thrombectomy within 24 hours after stroke onset and who had achieved successful reperfusion (an expanded TICI angiographic score of 2b50 to 3) were randomly assigned to receive intra-arterial alteplase (0.225 mg/kg; maximum dose, 22.5 mg) infused over 15 to 30 minutes or placebo.
Because of the lack of continued availability of placebo supplies, the study had to be stopped early after 121 patients were enrolled (65 alteplase; 56 placebo), and after a few dropouts who did not receive treatment, the analysis was performed on 61 patients who received alteplase and 52 given placebo.
Results showed that the proportion of patients with an mRS score of 0 or 1 at 90 days was 59% (36/61) with alteplase and 40.4% (21/52) with placebo (adjusted risk difference, 18.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%-36.4%; P = .047).
The proportion of patients with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 24 hours was 0% with alteplase and 3.8% with placebo (risk difference, −3.8%; 95% CI, −13.2% to 2.5%).
Mortality at 90 days was 8% with alteplase and 15% with placebo (risk difference, −7.2%; 95% CI, −19.2% to 4.8%).
The improved clinical outcomes in the alteplase group were seen despite only minor differences between the treatment groups in angiographic scores or in other surrogate imaging, Dr. Chamorro pointed out, suggesting that the improved functional outcome may be explained by an amelioration in the microcirculatory reperfusion.
He said the study also supported the safety of intra-arterial alteplase infusion for 15-30 minutes at the dose used. Of note, 60% of the study population had also received IV alteplase before thrombectomy.
In the JAMA study, the authors report that current guidelines recommend that all eligible patients receive intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy, and the results of this trial do not contradict this recommendation.
“The study results support the safety of adjunct intra-arterial alteplase in patients with successful reperfusion at the end of thrombectomy, including in patients treated previously with intravenous alteplase, although the findings on effectiveness should be interpreted as preliminary, requiring replication before any recommendations for practice change,” they concluded.
Dr. Chamorro said that his group was now planning a second larger trial, CHOICE-2.
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA, Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, University of Cincinnati, said “the 18% treatment effect observed in this 113-patient trial is remarkable.”
However, she cautions that consideration of its clinical implications must be tempered because of the lack of precision of the effect estimate, given wide 95% confidence intervals, the small sample size, and the observation that trials with early termination are well known to overestimate treatment effect.
But she acknowledges that the results suggest “that additional reperfusion therapy may be warranted after relatively successful mechanical thrombectomy of large vessel occlusions, whether to treat the residual primary thrombus, more distal arterial occlusions, or perhaps even microthromboses.”
Dr. Khatri noted that this approach runs counter to the recent movement to consider bypass of intravenous alteplase altogether in thrombectomy-eligible patients and suggests that additional or perhaps more targeted thrombolysis will be the most beneficial approach.
Further studies testing current thrombolytic agents, novel clot-dissolving agents, and other adjunctive antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory agents are needed, she concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new study.
The phase 2b CHOICE study was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Ángel Chamorro, MD, University of Barcelona, who received a round of applause as the results were revealed.
The study was also published online in JAMA to coincide with the presentation at the ISC.
The main results showed a remarkable and significant 18.4% absolute increase in the number of patients achieving an excellent neurologic outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1, after treatment with intra-arterial alteplase immediately following thrombectomy. This was despite the fact that the study was stopped early because of difficulty obtaining placebo supplies during the pandemic, having only enrolled 121 of the planned 200 patients.
This benefit was achieved without any increase in intracranial hemorrhage, which Dr. Chamorro described as “reassuring.”
He explained that although mechanical thrombectomy gives a high rate of successful reperfusion, only about 27% of patients achieve complete freedom of disability (mRS 0-1) at 3 months. He suggested that this may be the result of impaired reperfusion of the microcirculation despite complete recanalization of the occluded vessel.
The researchers postulated that thrombi could persist within the microcirculation in patients with normal or nearly normal cerebral angiograms at the end of thrombectomy and that these smaller thrombi may be dissolved by a dose of intra-arterial thrombolysis.
‘Dramatic and exciting results’
The CHOICE study was greeted with enthusiasm from commentators at the ISC meeting, which was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association. Louise McCullough, MD, chair of the late-breaking science session at which the study was presented and ISC program chair, described the results as “very dramatic and very exciting.”
“The CHOICE trial is going to be a highlight of the meeting because it could change care now,” Dr. McCullough said. “By just giving a little adjunctive tPA after the main clot is out, everybody seems to benefit, and there was no increased risk in bleeding. I think that’s the one that people are going to take back to their practice. But it was a very small trial, so you have to be cautious.”
And Peter Panagos, MD, professor of emergency medicine and neurology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, said: “It’s great to see this study. The 18% treatment effect is very impressive.”
Dr. Panagos added: “This study addresses a well-described finding from many of the interventional trials, that despite excellent outcomes in recanalization, patients don’t do as well as predicted. The thought is that either re-stenosis or propagation of smaller clots downstream from the original clot in small-caliber vessels [is what] causes additional, unintended damage. The use of intra-arterial thrombolysis after recanalization may assist in dissolving those smaller, downstream clots and debris and improve outcomes.”
But he pointed out that enthusiasm over these results must be matched with some concerns, including the small study size and wide confidence intervals – so larger, randomized studies will be required to confirm and change current clinical practice.
An abbreviated phase 2b trial
The CHOICE trial was conducted in seven centers in Catalonia, Spain.
For the study, patients with large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke treated with thrombectomy within 24 hours after stroke onset and who had achieved successful reperfusion (an expanded TICI angiographic score of 2b50 to 3) were randomly assigned to receive intra-arterial alteplase (0.225 mg/kg; maximum dose, 22.5 mg) infused over 15 to 30 minutes or placebo.
Because of the lack of continued availability of placebo supplies, the study had to be stopped early after 121 patients were enrolled (65 alteplase; 56 placebo), and after a few dropouts who did not receive treatment, the analysis was performed on 61 patients who received alteplase and 52 given placebo.
Results showed that the proportion of patients with an mRS score of 0 or 1 at 90 days was 59% (36/61) with alteplase and 40.4% (21/52) with placebo (adjusted risk difference, 18.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%-36.4%; P = .047).
The proportion of patients with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 24 hours was 0% with alteplase and 3.8% with placebo (risk difference, −3.8%; 95% CI, −13.2% to 2.5%).
Mortality at 90 days was 8% with alteplase and 15% with placebo (risk difference, −7.2%; 95% CI, −19.2% to 4.8%).
The improved clinical outcomes in the alteplase group were seen despite only minor differences between the treatment groups in angiographic scores or in other surrogate imaging, Dr. Chamorro pointed out, suggesting that the improved functional outcome may be explained by an amelioration in the microcirculatory reperfusion.
He said the study also supported the safety of intra-arterial alteplase infusion for 15-30 minutes at the dose used. Of note, 60% of the study population had also received IV alteplase before thrombectomy.
In the JAMA study, the authors report that current guidelines recommend that all eligible patients receive intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy, and the results of this trial do not contradict this recommendation.
“The study results support the safety of adjunct intra-arterial alteplase in patients with successful reperfusion at the end of thrombectomy, including in patients treated previously with intravenous alteplase, although the findings on effectiveness should be interpreted as preliminary, requiring replication before any recommendations for practice change,” they concluded.
Dr. Chamorro said that his group was now planning a second larger trial, CHOICE-2.
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA, Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, University of Cincinnati, said “the 18% treatment effect observed in this 113-patient trial is remarkable.”
However, she cautions that consideration of its clinical implications must be tempered because of the lack of precision of the effect estimate, given wide 95% confidence intervals, the small sample size, and the observation that trials with early termination are well known to overestimate treatment effect.
But she acknowledges that the results suggest “that additional reperfusion therapy may be warranted after relatively successful mechanical thrombectomy of large vessel occlusions, whether to treat the residual primary thrombus, more distal arterial occlusions, or perhaps even microthromboses.”
Dr. Khatri noted that this approach runs counter to the recent movement to consider bypass of intravenous alteplase altogether in thrombectomy-eligible patients and suggests that additional or perhaps more targeted thrombolysis will be the most beneficial approach.
Further studies testing current thrombolytic agents, novel clot-dissolving agents, and other adjunctive antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory agents are needed, she concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022