User login
RE-SPECT ESUS: Dabigatran matched aspirin for second stroke prevention
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: A second stroke occurred at 4.1%/year with dabigatran and 4.8%/year with aspirin, not a statistically significant difference.
Study details: RE-SPECT ESUS, an international randomized trial with 5,390 ESUS patients.
Disclosures: RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
Source: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
Extended Holter screening finds A-fib faster after ischemic strokes
MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.
“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.
Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.
FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.
The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).
The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.
During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.
FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.
“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.
Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.
FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.
The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).
The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.
During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.
FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.
“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.
Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.
FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.
The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).
The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.
During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.
FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Enhanced and prolonged monitoring for atrial fibrillation did not find more arrhythmias, but it did find them faster.
Major finding: Every six patients who underwent extended arrhythmia screening produced one additional patient eligible for a year of anticoagulant prophylaxis.
Study details: Three-year follow-up of FIND-AF, a multicenter, German study with 398 patients.
Disclosures: FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
Source: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress.
Thrombectomy shows efficacy for basilar artery strokes
MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.
“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.
In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.
In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.
Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.
The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.
The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.
BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.
MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.
“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.
In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.
In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.
Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.
The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.
The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.
BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.
MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.
“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.
In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.
In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.
Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.
The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.
The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.
BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In the as-treated analysis, thrombectomy produced a 47% rate of modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-3 after 90 days, compared with 24% in controls.
Study details: BEST, a multicenter, randomized trial with 131 Chinese patients.
Disclosures: BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.
Source: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.
Ganglion stimulation boosts cerebral blood flow, improves stroke outcomes
MONTREAL – Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) using a small, implanted electrode for 5 days in patients who had just had an acute ischemic stroke led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the subset of patients with confirmed cortical involvement in a pivotal, sham-controlled trial.
SPG stimulation started within 24 hours of an acute ischemic stroke “reduced poststroke disability over the entire outcome range and increased the proportion of patients who were alive and independent 3 months after their stroke” in the subgroup with a confirmed cortical infarction (CCI), Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Five days of SPG stimulation, done once daily starting within 24 hours of stroke onset, “enhances ipsilateral collateral blood flow” and may also stabilize the blood brain barrier, explained Dr. Saver, professor of neurology and director of the stroke center at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study included a prespecified primary endpoint analysis that focused exclusively on the CCI subgroup, 52% of the total enrolled population.
If the reported data result in Food and Drug Administration marketing approval for the system, Dr. Saver said that he anticipated “substantial uptake” of the strategy, which he tested in patients who had not undergone thrombectomy or thrombolysis treatment. In current U.S. practice, there is “a large group of patients with a missed opportunity for recanalization” who would be candidates for treatment with SPG stimulation, a treatment that appeared to provide benefits beyond current standard care, he said in an interview.
Ongoing studies are also testing whether SPG stimulation can benefit acute ischemic stroke patients who have already undergone treatment with thrombectomy or thrombolysis, he added. The same SPG stimulation device is additionally undergoing U.S. testing as a treatment for headache and has regulatory approval in the European Union for treating headache and migraine.
The ImpACT-24B (Implant for Augmentation of Cerebral Blood Flow Trial, Effectiveness and Safety in a 24-Hour Window) trial involved 1,000 patients at 73 centers in 18 countries, including the United States. The investigators enrolled acute ischemic stroke patients 8-24 hours after stroke onset who had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7-18.
Each patient received an implant of a short, thin metal electrode placed through the soft palate at the rear roof of the mouth, near the SPG. Neurologists primarily performed the implants in a procedure that had a “skin to skin” time of less than 5 minutes. Patients received either electrical stimulation or a sham stimulation through the electrode immediately after placement and then daily for the next 4 days. The investigators titrated the strength of the treatment stimulation in each patient to maximize its strength while maintaining patient comfort. Subsequent analysis of the results showed that the stronger the tolerated stimulation, the bigger the treatment effect in a clear dose-response pattern, Dr. Saver reported.
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement in the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 90 days after the index stroke when measured against historical expectations. By this measure, the overall study cohort showed a small, statistically insignificant improvement in actively treated patients, compared with sham-treated patients. However, in the prespecified, coprimary endpoint cohort of patients with a CCI, active treatment resulted in 50% of patients having a better-than-expected 90-day outcome, compared with 40% of controls, a 48% relative improvement in this measure that met the prespecified definition of statistical significance. The results also showed about a 50% relative improvement in each of three secondary outcomes in the CCI cohort: the percentage of patients with a mRS score of 0-2 after 90 days, the percentage with a mRS score of 0-3 after 90 days, and average stroke-related quality of life at 90 days.
Dr. Saver also reported results of a meta-analysis that combined the results he reported from 520 patients with CCI with results from 87 CCI patients enrolled in the preceding pilot study of this treatment strategy, ImpACT-1. The pilot findings were completely consistent and when combined with the current results strengthened the statistical significance of the primary and secondary endpoints.
“There is a compelling story” of efficacy based on the study results, the dose-response relationship, and the meta-analysis results, Dr. Saver said. “I think it’s a very strong case.”
He also reported “no safety concerns” raised in the new study, with no serious adverse effects seen in or experienced by the patients on active treatment.
“The data are compelling” for safety and efficacy, for this novel approach for treating acute ischemic stroke, commented Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology and director of the acute stroke program at the University of Cincinnati.
The study was sponsored by BrainsGate, the company developing the tested device. Dr. Saver has been a consultant to BrainsGate. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Biogen, Greenwich, Lumosa, and PTC Therapeutics.
SOURCE: Saver J et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):28, Abstract 104.
MONTREAL – Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) using a small, implanted electrode for 5 days in patients who had just had an acute ischemic stroke led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the subset of patients with confirmed cortical involvement in a pivotal, sham-controlled trial.
SPG stimulation started within 24 hours of an acute ischemic stroke “reduced poststroke disability over the entire outcome range and increased the proportion of patients who were alive and independent 3 months after their stroke” in the subgroup with a confirmed cortical infarction (CCI), Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Five days of SPG stimulation, done once daily starting within 24 hours of stroke onset, “enhances ipsilateral collateral blood flow” and may also stabilize the blood brain barrier, explained Dr. Saver, professor of neurology and director of the stroke center at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study included a prespecified primary endpoint analysis that focused exclusively on the CCI subgroup, 52% of the total enrolled population.
If the reported data result in Food and Drug Administration marketing approval for the system, Dr. Saver said that he anticipated “substantial uptake” of the strategy, which he tested in patients who had not undergone thrombectomy or thrombolysis treatment. In current U.S. practice, there is “a large group of patients with a missed opportunity for recanalization” who would be candidates for treatment with SPG stimulation, a treatment that appeared to provide benefits beyond current standard care, he said in an interview.
Ongoing studies are also testing whether SPG stimulation can benefit acute ischemic stroke patients who have already undergone treatment with thrombectomy or thrombolysis, he added. The same SPG stimulation device is additionally undergoing U.S. testing as a treatment for headache and has regulatory approval in the European Union for treating headache and migraine.
The ImpACT-24B (Implant for Augmentation of Cerebral Blood Flow Trial, Effectiveness and Safety in a 24-Hour Window) trial involved 1,000 patients at 73 centers in 18 countries, including the United States. The investigators enrolled acute ischemic stroke patients 8-24 hours after stroke onset who had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7-18.
Each patient received an implant of a short, thin metal electrode placed through the soft palate at the rear roof of the mouth, near the SPG. Neurologists primarily performed the implants in a procedure that had a “skin to skin” time of less than 5 minutes. Patients received either electrical stimulation or a sham stimulation through the electrode immediately after placement and then daily for the next 4 days. The investigators titrated the strength of the treatment stimulation in each patient to maximize its strength while maintaining patient comfort. Subsequent analysis of the results showed that the stronger the tolerated stimulation, the bigger the treatment effect in a clear dose-response pattern, Dr. Saver reported.
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement in the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 90 days after the index stroke when measured against historical expectations. By this measure, the overall study cohort showed a small, statistically insignificant improvement in actively treated patients, compared with sham-treated patients. However, in the prespecified, coprimary endpoint cohort of patients with a CCI, active treatment resulted in 50% of patients having a better-than-expected 90-day outcome, compared with 40% of controls, a 48% relative improvement in this measure that met the prespecified definition of statistical significance. The results also showed about a 50% relative improvement in each of three secondary outcomes in the CCI cohort: the percentage of patients with a mRS score of 0-2 after 90 days, the percentage with a mRS score of 0-3 after 90 days, and average stroke-related quality of life at 90 days.
Dr. Saver also reported results of a meta-analysis that combined the results he reported from 520 patients with CCI with results from 87 CCI patients enrolled in the preceding pilot study of this treatment strategy, ImpACT-1. The pilot findings were completely consistent and when combined with the current results strengthened the statistical significance of the primary and secondary endpoints.
“There is a compelling story” of efficacy based on the study results, the dose-response relationship, and the meta-analysis results, Dr. Saver said. “I think it’s a very strong case.”
He also reported “no safety concerns” raised in the new study, with no serious adverse effects seen in or experienced by the patients on active treatment.
“The data are compelling” for safety and efficacy, for this novel approach for treating acute ischemic stroke, commented Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology and director of the acute stroke program at the University of Cincinnati.
The study was sponsored by BrainsGate, the company developing the tested device. Dr. Saver has been a consultant to BrainsGate. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Biogen, Greenwich, Lumosa, and PTC Therapeutics.
SOURCE: Saver J et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):28, Abstract 104.
MONTREAL – Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) using a small, implanted electrode for 5 days in patients who had just had an acute ischemic stroke led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the subset of patients with confirmed cortical involvement in a pivotal, sham-controlled trial.
SPG stimulation started within 24 hours of an acute ischemic stroke “reduced poststroke disability over the entire outcome range and increased the proportion of patients who were alive and independent 3 months after their stroke” in the subgroup with a confirmed cortical infarction (CCI), Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Five days of SPG stimulation, done once daily starting within 24 hours of stroke onset, “enhances ipsilateral collateral blood flow” and may also stabilize the blood brain barrier, explained Dr. Saver, professor of neurology and director of the stroke center at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study included a prespecified primary endpoint analysis that focused exclusively on the CCI subgroup, 52% of the total enrolled population.
If the reported data result in Food and Drug Administration marketing approval for the system, Dr. Saver said that he anticipated “substantial uptake” of the strategy, which he tested in patients who had not undergone thrombectomy or thrombolysis treatment. In current U.S. practice, there is “a large group of patients with a missed opportunity for recanalization” who would be candidates for treatment with SPG stimulation, a treatment that appeared to provide benefits beyond current standard care, he said in an interview.
Ongoing studies are also testing whether SPG stimulation can benefit acute ischemic stroke patients who have already undergone treatment with thrombectomy or thrombolysis, he added. The same SPG stimulation device is additionally undergoing U.S. testing as a treatment for headache and has regulatory approval in the European Union for treating headache and migraine.
The ImpACT-24B (Implant for Augmentation of Cerebral Blood Flow Trial, Effectiveness and Safety in a 24-Hour Window) trial involved 1,000 patients at 73 centers in 18 countries, including the United States. The investigators enrolled acute ischemic stroke patients 8-24 hours after stroke onset who had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7-18.
Each patient received an implant of a short, thin metal electrode placed through the soft palate at the rear roof of the mouth, near the SPG. Neurologists primarily performed the implants in a procedure that had a “skin to skin” time of less than 5 minutes. Patients received either electrical stimulation or a sham stimulation through the electrode immediately after placement and then daily for the next 4 days. The investigators titrated the strength of the treatment stimulation in each patient to maximize its strength while maintaining patient comfort. Subsequent analysis of the results showed that the stronger the tolerated stimulation, the bigger the treatment effect in a clear dose-response pattern, Dr. Saver reported.
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement in the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 90 days after the index stroke when measured against historical expectations. By this measure, the overall study cohort showed a small, statistically insignificant improvement in actively treated patients, compared with sham-treated patients. However, in the prespecified, coprimary endpoint cohort of patients with a CCI, active treatment resulted in 50% of patients having a better-than-expected 90-day outcome, compared with 40% of controls, a 48% relative improvement in this measure that met the prespecified definition of statistical significance. The results also showed about a 50% relative improvement in each of three secondary outcomes in the CCI cohort: the percentage of patients with a mRS score of 0-2 after 90 days, the percentage with a mRS score of 0-3 after 90 days, and average stroke-related quality of life at 90 days.
Dr. Saver also reported results of a meta-analysis that combined the results he reported from 520 patients with CCI with results from 87 CCI patients enrolled in the preceding pilot study of this treatment strategy, ImpACT-1. The pilot findings were completely consistent and when combined with the current results strengthened the statistical significance of the primary and secondary endpoints.
“There is a compelling story” of efficacy based on the study results, the dose-response relationship, and the meta-analysis results, Dr. Saver said. “I think it’s a very strong case.”
He also reported “no safety concerns” raised in the new study, with no serious adverse effects seen in or experienced by the patients on active treatment.
“The data are compelling” for safety and efficacy, for this novel approach for treating acute ischemic stroke, commented Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology and director of the acute stroke program at the University of Cincinnati.
The study was sponsored by BrainsGate, the company developing the tested device. Dr. Saver has been a consultant to BrainsGate. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Biogen, Greenwich, Lumosa, and PTC Therapeutics.
SOURCE: Saver J et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):28, Abstract 104.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation of acute ischemic stroke patients boosted cerebral blood flow and improved 90-day outcomes in patients with confirmed cortical infarctions.
Major finding: For confirmed cortical infarctions ganglion stimulation led to a 48% higher rate of better-than-expected outcomes, compared with controls.
Study details: ImpACT-24B, a multicenter pivotal trial with 1,000 acute ischemic stroke patients.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by BrainsGate, the company developing the tested device. Dr. Saver has been a consultant to BrainsGate. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Biogen, Greenwich, Lumosa, and PTC Therapeutics.
Source: Saver J et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):28, Abstract 104.
CT opens extended window for stroke thrombolysis
MONTREAL – An extended time window for thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke patients using tissue plasminogen activator out to 9 hours from stroke onset was safe and effective using CT perfusion imaging and automated imaging processing software to select suitable patients in the EXTEND trial. This result matches the groundbreaking finding reported earlier in 2018 that used MRI to select patients for extended thrombolysis.
“To reproduce our results you need to set up CT perfusion” as well as the RAPID software for automated image processing to identify patients with a small infarct core and a large area of salvageable brain, said Henry Ma, MD, a stroke neurologist at Monash University, Melbourne, as he reported results from the trial at the World Stroke Congress. “EXTEND is the first positive thrombolysis trial in an extended time window using automated penumbral imaging.”
The new finding, from a trial with 225 randomized stroke patients, was especially notable because, by showing the validity of CT imaging for patient selection, it makes applying the extended time window for thrombolytic therapy more feasible for U.S. and Canadian stroke centers where CT imaging is much more common than MRI. A report from European investigators published in August 2018 from the WAKE-UP trial showed that thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) was safe and effective when administered to patients who woke up with an acute ischemic stroke that had occurred more than 4.5 hours before treatment, but this study exclusively used MRI for patient selection (N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 16;379[7]:611-22).
“In North America, our systems are more equipped for using CT,” commented Ashfaq Shuaib, MD, a professor of medicine and neurologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Based on the WAKE-UP results, “MR would be preferred, but what we’ve been doing [since the WAKE-UP report] is if we see a CT scan that’s good we go ahead” with thrombolysis.
“Biologically, it doesn’t matter whether you use MR or CT; they both index the same underlying pathology. We’ve been hesitant to go beyond the MR finding from WAKE-UP, where there were data, but the findings from EXTEND were right in line with the WAKE-UP results, and that’s all we need to be reassured” that CT perfusion imaging also works for patient selection, commented Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
CT perfusion imaging and automated image processing “worked to select stroke patients” for an extended time window for treatment with mechanical thrombectomy in the DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21) and DEFUSE 3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:308-18) trials, a history that makes the new finding of successfully using CT imaging to select patients who qualify for extended use of thrombolysis “a convincing result,” Dr. Saver said in an interview. The new EXTEND findings “will have a major impact” on using an extended time window for thrombolysis in U.S. practice, he predicted.
The EXTEND trial (Int J Stroke. 2012 Jan 1;7[1]:74-80) ran at 22 sites in Australia, 11 sites in Taiwan, and 1 center in New Zealand. Recruitment of patients into the study stopped early, after enrolling 225 patients, in June 2018, when results from WAKE-UP came out.
The EXTEND investigators enrolled patients who were either 4.5-9 hours out from the onset of their stroke or patients with a wake-up stroke with an uncertain onset. Participating centers could use either CT perfusion or MRI to identify candidates for treatment, and all used the RAPID software for image processing to identify patients with a perfusion lesion of at least 10 mL and an ischemic core volume no greater than 70 mL. Dr. Ma did not report what percentage of patients underwent imaging with each of these methods, but hinted that clinicians had used CT for a majority of the cases. The study randomized patients to receive either 0.9 mg/kg tPA or placebo, and by the trial protocol none of the enrolled patients received treatment with mechanical thrombectomy.
The trial’s primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days after their stroke, which was achieved by 44% more patients in the tPA group relative to the placebo arm after adjustment for age and baseline stroke severity, a statistically significant difference. The results were also positive for several secondary endpoints, such as recanalization 24 hours after treatment, which occurred in 67% of patients treated with tPA and 37% of the control patients, a statistically significant 68% relative improvement with thrombolysis.
Mortality at 90 days was similar in the two arms – 9% among the placebo patients and 12% among those who received tPA. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage 36 hours after treatment was significantly higher among patients treated with tPA at 6%, compared with 1% in the placebo group, but the magnitude of this adverse effect was consistent with rates of intracranial hemorrhages previously reported in other studies of thrombolytic treatment for acute ischemic stroke, Dr. Ma said. The small number of increased intracranial hemorrhages “was not associated with increased mortality, and did not negate the positive result of an improved rate of excellent functional outcomes.”
These findings will likely spur further adoption of imaging processing software of the type used in EXTEND by U.S. stroke centers, Dr. Saver predicted.
“More and more centers have been getting this [software], and now they have two reasons to have it: to identify patients for an extended window for mechanical thrombectomy and to identify patients for an extended window for thrombolysis. It is a compelling case to have the imaging software as widely disseminated as possible. Centers that want to do the best for patients should have this imaging-processing software,” Dr. Saver said.
Dr. Ma and Dr. Shuaib reported no disclosures. Dr. Saver has received research funding and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia.
SOURCE: Ma H et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):235, Abstract 1014.
Ever since results from the WAKE-UP trial came out earlier in 2018, we at the University of Cincinnati have been imaging acute ischemic stroke patients who presented outside the standard 4.5-hour time limit for thrombolysis with MRI to see if they qualify for an extended window for thrombolysis. But this has been a cumbersome and redundant process because our default imaging method is CT, so we have been imaging potential candidates for an extended thrombolytic window twice, first with CT and then later with MRI.
The EXTEND findings also provide a further reason for U.S. stroke centers to purchase and use some type of imaging processing software if they don’t already have it, either the RAPID software that was used in EXTEND or one of the several similar software packages that are now available. Several primary stroke centers in my area still do not currently use this software, although its use has been quickly spreading and it will now be increasingly hard for these centers to hold off acquiring it. Fortunately the increased competition among software vendors who sell this type of software has meant that the price has been dropping.
Pooja Khatri, MD , is a professor of neurology and director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati. She has been a consultant to Biogen, Greenwich, and PTC Therapeutics. She made these comments in an interview.
Ever since results from the WAKE-UP trial came out earlier in 2018, we at the University of Cincinnati have been imaging acute ischemic stroke patients who presented outside the standard 4.5-hour time limit for thrombolysis with MRI to see if they qualify for an extended window for thrombolysis. But this has been a cumbersome and redundant process because our default imaging method is CT, so we have been imaging potential candidates for an extended thrombolytic window twice, first with CT and then later with MRI.
The EXTEND findings also provide a further reason for U.S. stroke centers to purchase and use some type of imaging processing software if they don’t already have it, either the RAPID software that was used in EXTEND or one of the several similar software packages that are now available. Several primary stroke centers in my area still do not currently use this software, although its use has been quickly spreading and it will now be increasingly hard for these centers to hold off acquiring it. Fortunately the increased competition among software vendors who sell this type of software has meant that the price has been dropping.
Pooja Khatri, MD , is a professor of neurology and director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati. She has been a consultant to Biogen, Greenwich, and PTC Therapeutics. She made these comments in an interview.
Ever since results from the WAKE-UP trial came out earlier in 2018, we at the University of Cincinnati have been imaging acute ischemic stroke patients who presented outside the standard 4.5-hour time limit for thrombolysis with MRI to see if they qualify for an extended window for thrombolysis. But this has been a cumbersome and redundant process because our default imaging method is CT, so we have been imaging potential candidates for an extended thrombolytic window twice, first with CT and then later with MRI.
The EXTEND findings also provide a further reason for U.S. stroke centers to purchase and use some type of imaging processing software if they don’t already have it, either the RAPID software that was used in EXTEND or one of the several similar software packages that are now available. Several primary stroke centers in my area still do not currently use this software, although its use has been quickly spreading and it will now be increasingly hard for these centers to hold off acquiring it. Fortunately the increased competition among software vendors who sell this type of software has meant that the price has been dropping.
Pooja Khatri, MD , is a professor of neurology and director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati. She has been a consultant to Biogen, Greenwich, and PTC Therapeutics. She made these comments in an interview.
MONTREAL – An extended time window for thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke patients using tissue plasminogen activator out to 9 hours from stroke onset was safe and effective using CT perfusion imaging and automated imaging processing software to select suitable patients in the EXTEND trial. This result matches the groundbreaking finding reported earlier in 2018 that used MRI to select patients for extended thrombolysis.
“To reproduce our results you need to set up CT perfusion” as well as the RAPID software for automated image processing to identify patients with a small infarct core and a large area of salvageable brain, said Henry Ma, MD, a stroke neurologist at Monash University, Melbourne, as he reported results from the trial at the World Stroke Congress. “EXTEND is the first positive thrombolysis trial in an extended time window using automated penumbral imaging.”
The new finding, from a trial with 225 randomized stroke patients, was especially notable because, by showing the validity of CT imaging for patient selection, it makes applying the extended time window for thrombolytic therapy more feasible for U.S. and Canadian stroke centers where CT imaging is much more common than MRI. A report from European investigators published in August 2018 from the WAKE-UP trial showed that thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) was safe and effective when administered to patients who woke up with an acute ischemic stroke that had occurred more than 4.5 hours before treatment, but this study exclusively used MRI for patient selection (N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 16;379[7]:611-22).
“In North America, our systems are more equipped for using CT,” commented Ashfaq Shuaib, MD, a professor of medicine and neurologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Based on the WAKE-UP results, “MR would be preferred, but what we’ve been doing [since the WAKE-UP report] is if we see a CT scan that’s good we go ahead” with thrombolysis.
“Biologically, it doesn’t matter whether you use MR or CT; they both index the same underlying pathology. We’ve been hesitant to go beyond the MR finding from WAKE-UP, where there were data, but the findings from EXTEND were right in line with the WAKE-UP results, and that’s all we need to be reassured” that CT perfusion imaging also works for patient selection, commented Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
CT perfusion imaging and automated image processing “worked to select stroke patients” for an extended time window for treatment with mechanical thrombectomy in the DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21) and DEFUSE 3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:308-18) trials, a history that makes the new finding of successfully using CT imaging to select patients who qualify for extended use of thrombolysis “a convincing result,” Dr. Saver said in an interview. The new EXTEND findings “will have a major impact” on using an extended time window for thrombolysis in U.S. practice, he predicted.
The EXTEND trial (Int J Stroke. 2012 Jan 1;7[1]:74-80) ran at 22 sites in Australia, 11 sites in Taiwan, and 1 center in New Zealand. Recruitment of patients into the study stopped early, after enrolling 225 patients, in June 2018, when results from WAKE-UP came out.
The EXTEND investigators enrolled patients who were either 4.5-9 hours out from the onset of their stroke or patients with a wake-up stroke with an uncertain onset. Participating centers could use either CT perfusion or MRI to identify candidates for treatment, and all used the RAPID software for image processing to identify patients with a perfusion lesion of at least 10 mL and an ischemic core volume no greater than 70 mL. Dr. Ma did not report what percentage of patients underwent imaging with each of these methods, but hinted that clinicians had used CT for a majority of the cases. The study randomized patients to receive either 0.9 mg/kg tPA or placebo, and by the trial protocol none of the enrolled patients received treatment with mechanical thrombectomy.
The trial’s primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days after their stroke, which was achieved by 44% more patients in the tPA group relative to the placebo arm after adjustment for age and baseline stroke severity, a statistically significant difference. The results were also positive for several secondary endpoints, such as recanalization 24 hours after treatment, which occurred in 67% of patients treated with tPA and 37% of the control patients, a statistically significant 68% relative improvement with thrombolysis.
Mortality at 90 days was similar in the two arms – 9% among the placebo patients and 12% among those who received tPA. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage 36 hours after treatment was significantly higher among patients treated with tPA at 6%, compared with 1% in the placebo group, but the magnitude of this adverse effect was consistent with rates of intracranial hemorrhages previously reported in other studies of thrombolytic treatment for acute ischemic stroke, Dr. Ma said. The small number of increased intracranial hemorrhages “was not associated with increased mortality, and did not negate the positive result of an improved rate of excellent functional outcomes.”
These findings will likely spur further adoption of imaging processing software of the type used in EXTEND by U.S. stroke centers, Dr. Saver predicted.
“More and more centers have been getting this [software], and now they have two reasons to have it: to identify patients for an extended window for mechanical thrombectomy and to identify patients for an extended window for thrombolysis. It is a compelling case to have the imaging software as widely disseminated as possible. Centers that want to do the best for patients should have this imaging-processing software,” Dr. Saver said.
Dr. Ma and Dr. Shuaib reported no disclosures. Dr. Saver has received research funding and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia.
SOURCE: Ma H et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):235, Abstract 1014.
MONTREAL – An extended time window for thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke patients using tissue plasminogen activator out to 9 hours from stroke onset was safe and effective using CT perfusion imaging and automated imaging processing software to select suitable patients in the EXTEND trial. This result matches the groundbreaking finding reported earlier in 2018 that used MRI to select patients for extended thrombolysis.
“To reproduce our results you need to set up CT perfusion” as well as the RAPID software for automated image processing to identify patients with a small infarct core and a large area of salvageable brain, said Henry Ma, MD, a stroke neurologist at Monash University, Melbourne, as he reported results from the trial at the World Stroke Congress. “EXTEND is the first positive thrombolysis trial in an extended time window using automated penumbral imaging.”
The new finding, from a trial with 225 randomized stroke patients, was especially notable because, by showing the validity of CT imaging for patient selection, it makes applying the extended time window for thrombolytic therapy more feasible for U.S. and Canadian stroke centers where CT imaging is much more common than MRI. A report from European investigators published in August 2018 from the WAKE-UP trial showed that thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) was safe and effective when administered to patients who woke up with an acute ischemic stroke that had occurred more than 4.5 hours before treatment, but this study exclusively used MRI for patient selection (N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 16;379[7]:611-22).
“In North America, our systems are more equipped for using CT,” commented Ashfaq Shuaib, MD, a professor of medicine and neurologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Based on the WAKE-UP results, “MR would be preferred, but what we’ve been doing [since the WAKE-UP report] is if we see a CT scan that’s good we go ahead” with thrombolysis.
“Biologically, it doesn’t matter whether you use MR or CT; they both index the same underlying pathology. We’ve been hesitant to go beyond the MR finding from WAKE-UP, where there were data, but the findings from EXTEND were right in line with the WAKE-UP results, and that’s all we need to be reassured” that CT perfusion imaging also works for patient selection, commented Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
CT perfusion imaging and automated image processing “worked to select stroke patients” for an extended time window for treatment with mechanical thrombectomy in the DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21) and DEFUSE 3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:308-18) trials, a history that makes the new finding of successfully using CT imaging to select patients who qualify for extended use of thrombolysis “a convincing result,” Dr. Saver said in an interview. The new EXTEND findings “will have a major impact” on using an extended time window for thrombolysis in U.S. practice, he predicted.
The EXTEND trial (Int J Stroke. 2012 Jan 1;7[1]:74-80) ran at 22 sites in Australia, 11 sites in Taiwan, and 1 center in New Zealand. Recruitment of patients into the study stopped early, after enrolling 225 patients, in June 2018, when results from WAKE-UP came out.
The EXTEND investigators enrolled patients who were either 4.5-9 hours out from the onset of their stroke or patients with a wake-up stroke with an uncertain onset. Participating centers could use either CT perfusion or MRI to identify candidates for treatment, and all used the RAPID software for image processing to identify patients with a perfusion lesion of at least 10 mL and an ischemic core volume no greater than 70 mL. Dr. Ma did not report what percentage of patients underwent imaging with each of these methods, but hinted that clinicians had used CT for a majority of the cases. The study randomized patients to receive either 0.9 mg/kg tPA or placebo, and by the trial protocol none of the enrolled patients received treatment with mechanical thrombectomy.
The trial’s primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days after their stroke, which was achieved by 44% more patients in the tPA group relative to the placebo arm after adjustment for age and baseline stroke severity, a statistically significant difference. The results were also positive for several secondary endpoints, such as recanalization 24 hours after treatment, which occurred in 67% of patients treated with tPA and 37% of the control patients, a statistically significant 68% relative improvement with thrombolysis.
Mortality at 90 days was similar in the two arms – 9% among the placebo patients and 12% among those who received tPA. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage 36 hours after treatment was significantly higher among patients treated with tPA at 6%, compared with 1% in the placebo group, but the magnitude of this adverse effect was consistent with rates of intracranial hemorrhages previously reported in other studies of thrombolytic treatment for acute ischemic stroke, Dr. Ma said. The small number of increased intracranial hemorrhages “was not associated with increased mortality, and did not negate the positive result of an improved rate of excellent functional outcomes.”
These findings will likely spur further adoption of imaging processing software of the type used in EXTEND by U.S. stroke centers, Dr. Saver predicted.
“More and more centers have been getting this [software], and now they have two reasons to have it: to identify patients for an extended window for mechanical thrombectomy and to identify patients for an extended window for thrombolysis. It is a compelling case to have the imaging software as widely disseminated as possible. Centers that want to do the best for patients should have this imaging-processing software,” Dr. Saver said.
Dr. Ma and Dr. Shuaib reported no disclosures. Dr. Saver has received research funding and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia.
SOURCE: Ma H et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):235, Abstract 1014.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients who received thrombolysis 4.5-9 hours after stroke onset had a 44% increased rate of good outcomes, compared with controls.
Study details: EXTEND, a multicenter, controlled trial with 225 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Ma and Dr. Shuaib had no disclosures. Dr. Saver has received research funding and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia.
Source: Ma H et al. Int J. Stroke. 2018 Oct;13(2S):235, Abstract 1014.
Prior TIA proves less risky than stroke in AF patients
MONTREAL – Stroke and transient ischemic attack, usually joined at the hip as related histories that each flag a similar need for anticoagulation may in fact not be nearly as equivalent as conventional wisdom says.
Analysis of 2-year follow-up data from the GARFIELD-AF registry of more than 52,000 patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) showed that, while patients with a history of stroke had significantly elevated rates of both all-cause mortality and stroke, those with just a history of a transient ischemic attack (TIA) had mortality and stroke rates virtually identical to AF patients with no history of a cerebrovascular event.
“A history of TIA only is not a reliable predictor of an increased risk for events,” Werner Hacke, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “A history of TIA should be removed from scores estimating the risk for stroke and systemic embolism in AF patients,” said Dr. Hacke, professor and chairman of the department of neurology at the University of Heidelberg (Germany).
“The weak predictive power of a history of TIA is probably caused by the relatively low reliability of establishing the diagnosis of TIA,” especially when the diagnosis is made by someone who’s not a neurologist. “It’s a very fuzzy diagnosis,” even for a neurologist, and it consistently confounds other clinicians, he said in an interview. “I’d be really careful of deciding to anticoagulate a patient [with AF] based on a history of TIA.” In the GARFIELD-AF registry, “I’m convinced that most people with a history of TIA actually never had a TIA.”
Dr. Hacke has been unable to find a good explanation of why, years ago, TIAs began to get routinely lumped with stroke. “I asked all the old AF guys when did TIA start coming in and why, and none of them could remember,” he said. “At first, they talked about a history of ‘cerebrovascular events,’ but then that became stroke and TIA, and it was as if it was one word,” always said in the same breath. Both the CHADS2 score (JAMA. 2001 Jun 13;285[22]:2864-70) and the CHA2DS2-VASc score (Chest. 2010 Feb;137[2]:263-72) make a history of stroke or TIA, as well as thromboembolism, coequal risk factors that count for 2 points when calculating the thrombotic risk score for a patient with AF.
To test whether this really made sense, Dr. Hacke and his associates decided to look at the separate consequences of a history of stroke only, compared with a history of a TIA only. They used data collected in GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field), a multinational registry with 51,670 patients newly diagnosed with AF, followed for 2 years, and with complete information on their stroke and TIA history. This included 5,617 patients with a history of at least one diagnosed cerebrovascular event, including 3,362 diagnosed with stroke only, 1,788 diagnosed with TIA only, and the remaining patients diagnosed with both types of events.
When compared with AF patients without a history of any type of cerebrovascular event, those with a history of a stroke only had a statistically significant 29% increased rate of all-cause death and a 2.3-fold higher rate of stroke after adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical differences. In contrast, the patients with a history of TIA only had mortality and stroke rates during follow-up that did not differ significantly from the comparator group.
Source: Hacke W et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
MONTREAL – Stroke and transient ischemic attack, usually joined at the hip as related histories that each flag a similar need for anticoagulation may in fact not be nearly as equivalent as conventional wisdom says.
Analysis of 2-year follow-up data from the GARFIELD-AF registry of more than 52,000 patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) showed that, while patients with a history of stroke had significantly elevated rates of both all-cause mortality and stroke, those with just a history of a transient ischemic attack (TIA) had mortality and stroke rates virtually identical to AF patients with no history of a cerebrovascular event.
“A history of TIA only is not a reliable predictor of an increased risk for events,” Werner Hacke, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “A history of TIA should be removed from scores estimating the risk for stroke and systemic embolism in AF patients,” said Dr. Hacke, professor and chairman of the department of neurology at the University of Heidelberg (Germany).
“The weak predictive power of a history of TIA is probably caused by the relatively low reliability of establishing the diagnosis of TIA,” especially when the diagnosis is made by someone who’s not a neurologist. “It’s a very fuzzy diagnosis,” even for a neurologist, and it consistently confounds other clinicians, he said in an interview. “I’d be really careful of deciding to anticoagulate a patient [with AF] based on a history of TIA.” In the GARFIELD-AF registry, “I’m convinced that most people with a history of TIA actually never had a TIA.”
Dr. Hacke has been unable to find a good explanation of why, years ago, TIAs began to get routinely lumped with stroke. “I asked all the old AF guys when did TIA start coming in and why, and none of them could remember,” he said. “At first, they talked about a history of ‘cerebrovascular events,’ but then that became stroke and TIA, and it was as if it was one word,” always said in the same breath. Both the CHADS2 score (JAMA. 2001 Jun 13;285[22]:2864-70) and the CHA2DS2-VASc score (Chest. 2010 Feb;137[2]:263-72) make a history of stroke or TIA, as well as thromboembolism, coequal risk factors that count for 2 points when calculating the thrombotic risk score for a patient with AF.
To test whether this really made sense, Dr. Hacke and his associates decided to look at the separate consequences of a history of stroke only, compared with a history of a TIA only. They used data collected in GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field), a multinational registry with 51,670 patients newly diagnosed with AF, followed for 2 years, and with complete information on their stroke and TIA history. This included 5,617 patients with a history of at least one diagnosed cerebrovascular event, including 3,362 diagnosed with stroke only, 1,788 diagnosed with TIA only, and the remaining patients diagnosed with both types of events.
When compared with AF patients without a history of any type of cerebrovascular event, those with a history of a stroke only had a statistically significant 29% increased rate of all-cause death and a 2.3-fold higher rate of stroke after adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical differences. In contrast, the patients with a history of TIA only had mortality and stroke rates during follow-up that did not differ significantly from the comparator group.
Source: Hacke W et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
MONTREAL – Stroke and transient ischemic attack, usually joined at the hip as related histories that each flag a similar need for anticoagulation may in fact not be nearly as equivalent as conventional wisdom says.
Analysis of 2-year follow-up data from the GARFIELD-AF registry of more than 52,000 patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) showed that, while patients with a history of stroke had significantly elevated rates of both all-cause mortality and stroke, those with just a history of a transient ischemic attack (TIA) had mortality and stroke rates virtually identical to AF patients with no history of a cerebrovascular event.
“A history of TIA only is not a reliable predictor of an increased risk for events,” Werner Hacke, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “A history of TIA should be removed from scores estimating the risk for stroke and systemic embolism in AF patients,” said Dr. Hacke, professor and chairman of the department of neurology at the University of Heidelberg (Germany).
“The weak predictive power of a history of TIA is probably caused by the relatively low reliability of establishing the diagnosis of TIA,” especially when the diagnosis is made by someone who’s not a neurologist. “It’s a very fuzzy diagnosis,” even for a neurologist, and it consistently confounds other clinicians, he said in an interview. “I’d be really careful of deciding to anticoagulate a patient [with AF] based on a history of TIA.” In the GARFIELD-AF registry, “I’m convinced that most people with a history of TIA actually never had a TIA.”
Dr. Hacke has been unable to find a good explanation of why, years ago, TIAs began to get routinely lumped with stroke. “I asked all the old AF guys when did TIA start coming in and why, and none of them could remember,” he said. “At first, they talked about a history of ‘cerebrovascular events,’ but then that became stroke and TIA, and it was as if it was one word,” always said in the same breath. Both the CHADS2 score (JAMA. 2001 Jun 13;285[22]:2864-70) and the CHA2DS2-VASc score (Chest. 2010 Feb;137[2]:263-72) make a history of stroke or TIA, as well as thromboembolism, coequal risk factors that count for 2 points when calculating the thrombotic risk score for a patient with AF.
To test whether this really made sense, Dr. Hacke and his associates decided to look at the separate consequences of a history of stroke only, compared with a history of a TIA only. They used data collected in GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field), a multinational registry with 51,670 patients newly diagnosed with AF, followed for 2 years, and with complete information on their stroke and TIA history. This included 5,617 patients with a history of at least one diagnosed cerebrovascular event, including 3,362 diagnosed with stroke only, 1,788 diagnosed with TIA only, and the remaining patients diagnosed with both types of events.
When compared with AF patients without a history of any type of cerebrovascular event, those with a history of a stroke only had a statistically significant 29% increased rate of all-cause death and a 2.3-fold higher rate of stroke after adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical differences. In contrast, the patients with a history of TIA only had mortality and stroke rates during follow-up that did not differ significantly from the comparator group.
Source: Hacke W et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The adjusted rate of stroke in patients with a TIA history was not significantly different from patients with no history.
Study details: GARFIELD-AF, a multinational registry of 52,014 patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation.
Disclosures: GARFIELD-AF is funded by Bayer. Dr. Hacke has been an adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim and Cerenovus and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim.
Source: Hacke W et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
DAPT’s benefit after stroke or TIA clusters in first 21 days
MONTREAL – The optimal length for dual antiplatelet therapy in patients who have just had a mild stroke or transient ischemic attack is 21 days, a duration of combined treatment that maximized protection against major ischemic events while minimizing the extra risk for a major hemorrhage, according to a prespecified analysis of data from the POINT trial.
The POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) trial randomized 4,881 patients with a very recent mild stroke or transient ischemic attack and without atrial fibrillation to treatment with either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone for 90 days. Compared with aspirin alone, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cut the incidence of a major ischemic event by a relative 25% but also more than doubled the rate of major hemorrhage (New Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 19;377[3]:215-25).
The new, prespecified analysis looked at outcomes on a week-by-week basis over the course of 90 days of treatment, and showed that during the first 21 days the rate of major ischemic events was 5.6% among patients on aspirin only and 3.6% among those on DAPT, a statistically significant 35% relative cut in these adverse outcomes by using DAPT, Jordan J. Elm, PhD, reported at the World Stroke Congress. During the subsequent 69 days on treatment, the incidence of major ischemic events was roughly 1% in both arms of the study, showing that after 3 weeks the incremental benefit from DAPT disappeared, said Dr. Elm, a biostatistician at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In contrast, the doubled rate of major hemorrhages (mostly reversible gastrointestinal bleeds) with DAPT, compared with aspirin alone, occurred at a relatively uniform rate throughout the 90 days of treatment, meaning that limiting DAPT to just 21 days could prevent many of the excess hemorrhages.
“These results suggest that limiting clopidogrel plus aspirin use to 21 days may maximize benefit and reduce risk,” Dr. Elm said, especially in light of the findings confirming the efficacy of 21 days of DAPT following a minor stroke or TIA that had been reported several years ago in the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) trial (New Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 4;369[1]:11-9).
Although the new finding from the POINT results came in a secondary analysis, it’s statistically legitimate and should be taken into account when writing treatment guidelines, she said, emphasizing that “this is a very important analysis that is not just hypothesis generating.”
Another finding from the new analysis was that a large number of major ischemic events, and hence a large number of the events prevented by DAPT, occurred in the first 2 days following the index event, a finding made possible because the POINT investigators enrolled patients and started treatment within 12 hours of the qualifying events.
“It’s better to start treatment early,” Dr. Elm noted, but she also highlighted that major ischemic events continued to accumulate during days 3-21, suggesting that patients could still benefit from DAPT even if treatment did not start until 24 or 48 hours after their index event.
POINT received no commercial funding aside from study drugs supplied by Sanofi. Dr. Elm reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Elm JJ et al. World Stroke Congress, Late-breaking session.
The new model using data from the POINT trial confirms what had been previously shown in the CHANCE trial – that 21 days is a sensible cutoff for dual antiplatelet treatment for patients immediately following a mild stroke or transient ischemic attack. Treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days provides the same added benefit as 90 days of treatment but with less excess bleeding. The new findings confirm that the CHANCE results were not specific to a Chinese population.
For the time being, clopidogrel is the evidence-based antiplatelet drug to pair with aspirin for this indication. Clopidogrel has the advantages of being generic, cheap, available, and familiar. It’s possible that another P2Y12 inhibitor, such as ticagrelor (Brilinta), might work even better, but that needs to be proven to justify the added expense of a brand-name antiplatelet drug.
Mike Sharma, MD , is a stroke neurologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. He has been an advisor to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer. He made these comments in an interview.
The new model using data from the POINT trial confirms what had been previously shown in the CHANCE trial – that 21 days is a sensible cutoff for dual antiplatelet treatment for patients immediately following a mild stroke or transient ischemic attack. Treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days provides the same added benefit as 90 days of treatment but with less excess bleeding. The new findings confirm that the CHANCE results were not specific to a Chinese population.
For the time being, clopidogrel is the evidence-based antiplatelet drug to pair with aspirin for this indication. Clopidogrel has the advantages of being generic, cheap, available, and familiar. It’s possible that another P2Y12 inhibitor, such as ticagrelor (Brilinta), might work even better, but that needs to be proven to justify the added expense of a brand-name antiplatelet drug.
Mike Sharma, MD , is a stroke neurologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. He has been an advisor to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer. He made these comments in an interview.
The new model using data from the POINT trial confirms what had been previously shown in the CHANCE trial – that 21 days is a sensible cutoff for dual antiplatelet treatment for patients immediately following a mild stroke or transient ischemic attack. Treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days provides the same added benefit as 90 days of treatment but with less excess bleeding. The new findings confirm that the CHANCE results were not specific to a Chinese population.
For the time being, clopidogrel is the evidence-based antiplatelet drug to pair with aspirin for this indication. Clopidogrel has the advantages of being generic, cheap, available, and familiar. It’s possible that another P2Y12 inhibitor, such as ticagrelor (Brilinta), might work even better, but that needs to be proven to justify the added expense of a brand-name antiplatelet drug.
Mike Sharma, MD , is a stroke neurologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. He has been an advisor to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer. He made these comments in an interview.
MONTREAL – The optimal length for dual antiplatelet therapy in patients who have just had a mild stroke or transient ischemic attack is 21 days, a duration of combined treatment that maximized protection against major ischemic events while minimizing the extra risk for a major hemorrhage, according to a prespecified analysis of data from the POINT trial.
The POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) trial randomized 4,881 patients with a very recent mild stroke or transient ischemic attack and without atrial fibrillation to treatment with either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone for 90 days. Compared with aspirin alone, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cut the incidence of a major ischemic event by a relative 25% but also more than doubled the rate of major hemorrhage (New Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 19;377[3]:215-25).
The new, prespecified analysis looked at outcomes on a week-by-week basis over the course of 90 days of treatment, and showed that during the first 21 days the rate of major ischemic events was 5.6% among patients on aspirin only and 3.6% among those on DAPT, a statistically significant 35% relative cut in these adverse outcomes by using DAPT, Jordan J. Elm, PhD, reported at the World Stroke Congress. During the subsequent 69 days on treatment, the incidence of major ischemic events was roughly 1% in both arms of the study, showing that after 3 weeks the incremental benefit from DAPT disappeared, said Dr. Elm, a biostatistician at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In contrast, the doubled rate of major hemorrhages (mostly reversible gastrointestinal bleeds) with DAPT, compared with aspirin alone, occurred at a relatively uniform rate throughout the 90 days of treatment, meaning that limiting DAPT to just 21 days could prevent many of the excess hemorrhages.
“These results suggest that limiting clopidogrel plus aspirin use to 21 days may maximize benefit and reduce risk,” Dr. Elm said, especially in light of the findings confirming the efficacy of 21 days of DAPT following a minor stroke or TIA that had been reported several years ago in the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) trial (New Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 4;369[1]:11-9).
Although the new finding from the POINT results came in a secondary analysis, it’s statistically legitimate and should be taken into account when writing treatment guidelines, she said, emphasizing that “this is a very important analysis that is not just hypothesis generating.”
Another finding from the new analysis was that a large number of major ischemic events, and hence a large number of the events prevented by DAPT, occurred in the first 2 days following the index event, a finding made possible because the POINT investigators enrolled patients and started treatment within 12 hours of the qualifying events.
“It’s better to start treatment early,” Dr. Elm noted, but she also highlighted that major ischemic events continued to accumulate during days 3-21, suggesting that patients could still benefit from DAPT even if treatment did not start until 24 or 48 hours after their index event.
POINT received no commercial funding aside from study drugs supplied by Sanofi. Dr. Elm reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Elm JJ et al. World Stroke Congress, Late-breaking session.
MONTREAL – The optimal length for dual antiplatelet therapy in patients who have just had a mild stroke or transient ischemic attack is 21 days, a duration of combined treatment that maximized protection against major ischemic events while minimizing the extra risk for a major hemorrhage, according to a prespecified analysis of data from the POINT trial.
The POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) trial randomized 4,881 patients with a very recent mild stroke or transient ischemic attack and without atrial fibrillation to treatment with either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone for 90 days. Compared with aspirin alone, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cut the incidence of a major ischemic event by a relative 25% but also more than doubled the rate of major hemorrhage (New Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 19;377[3]:215-25).
The new, prespecified analysis looked at outcomes on a week-by-week basis over the course of 90 days of treatment, and showed that during the first 21 days the rate of major ischemic events was 5.6% among patients on aspirin only and 3.6% among those on DAPT, a statistically significant 35% relative cut in these adverse outcomes by using DAPT, Jordan J. Elm, PhD, reported at the World Stroke Congress. During the subsequent 69 days on treatment, the incidence of major ischemic events was roughly 1% in both arms of the study, showing that after 3 weeks the incremental benefit from DAPT disappeared, said Dr. Elm, a biostatistician at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In contrast, the doubled rate of major hemorrhages (mostly reversible gastrointestinal bleeds) with DAPT, compared with aspirin alone, occurred at a relatively uniform rate throughout the 90 days of treatment, meaning that limiting DAPT to just 21 days could prevent many of the excess hemorrhages.
“These results suggest that limiting clopidogrel plus aspirin use to 21 days may maximize benefit and reduce risk,” Dr. Elm said, especially in light of the findings confirming the efficacy of 21 days of DAPT following a minor stroke or TIA that had been reported several years ago in the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) trial (New Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 4;369[1]:11-9).
Although the new finding from the POINT results came in a secondary analysis, it’s statistically legitimate and should be taken into account when writing treatment guidelines, she said, emphasizing that “this is a very important analysis that is not just hypothesis generating.”
Another finding from the new analysis was that a large number of major ischemic events, and hence a large number of the events prevented by DAPT, occurred in the first 2 days following the index event, a finding made possible because the POINT investigators enrolled patients and started treatment within 12 hours of the qualifying events.
“It’s better to start treatment early,” Dr. Elm noted, but she also highlighted that major ischemic events continued to accumulate during days 3-21, suggesting that patients could still benefit from DAPT even if treatment did not start until 24 or 48 hours after their index event.
POINT received no commercial funding aside from study drugs supplied by Sanofi. Dr. Elm reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Elm JJ et al. World Stroke Congress, Late-breaking session.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point: All of DAPT’s extra benefit over aspirin alone in recent stroke or transient ischemic attack patients happened during the first 21 days.
Major finding: During the first 21 days, DAPT cut major ischemic events by 35%, compared with aspirin only.
Study details: A prespecified, secondary analysis from POINT, a multicenter, randomized trial with 4,881 patients.
Disclosures: POINT received no commercial funding aside from study drugs supplied by Sanofi. Dr. Elm had no disclosures.
Source: Elm JJ et al. World Stroke Congress, Late-breaking session.
Smartphone device beat Holter for post-stroke AF detection
MONTREAL – A smartphone-based method for quick and inexpensive monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized for a recent acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack identified three times more patients with the arrhythmia than did 24-hour Holter monitoring of the same patients after their hospital discharge.
This high level of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection using a relatively cheap and noninvasive device suggests that this method is a good “complement” to conventional monitoring by a 24-hour Holter recording or an implanted loop recorder in recent stroke patients, as called for in current guidelines of the world’s cardiology societies.
In the study, 294 of 1,079 patients hospitalized for an acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) underwent Holter monitoring, which identified 8 patients (3%) with AF, compared with 25 of these 294 patients (9%) identified with AF while they were hospitalized using serial, 30-second monitoring with the AliveCor device for smartphone assessment of ECG measurement, Bernard Yan, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Seven of the eight patients identified with AF by Holter monitoring were also found to have AF by the AliveCor device.
Dr. Yan, an interventional neurologist at the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, attributed the higher pick-up rate for AF by monitoring during hospitalization to the timing of screening, which was within days of the stroke or TIA, rather than waiting to run a Holter sometime after the patient left the hospital.
“I suspect the difference in timing explains the difference” in detection, he said in an interview. “The difference may be because we monitored patients [with the AliveCor device] much earlier, during their ‘hot’ period, right after their stroke.”
The SPOT-AF trial ran at several centers in Australia, China, and Hong Kong, and enrolled 1,079 patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke or TIA who all underwent AliveCor monitoring during their median 4-day stay in the hospital. Patients performed a 30-second heart rhythm check every time a nurse saw them for a routine vital-sign examination, usually three or four times a day. The current analysis focused on the 294 patients (27% of the 1,079 patients) who also underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring following hospital discharge when ordered by their personal physician. This 27% incidence of postdischarge Holter monitoring despite guidelines that call for AF screening in all recent ischemic stroke and TIA patients was consistent with a 2016 review of more than 17,000 stroke or TIA patients in Canada that showed 31% underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring for AF during the 30 days following their index event (Stroke. 2016 Aug;47[8]:1982-9).
Although AF screening with a smartphone-based device is inexpensive and easy, Dr. Yan stopped short of suggesting that it is time for this approach to replace a Holter monitor or an implanted loop recorder because that is what current guidelines call for. “To change the guidelines, we need a different study that compares these approaches head to head.”
SPOT-AF received partial funding from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Yan has been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Stryker.
MONTREAL – A smartphone-based method for quick and inexpensive monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized for a recent acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack identified three times more patients with the arrhythmia than did 24-hour Holter monitoring of the same patients after their hospital discharge.
This high level of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection using a relatively cheap and noninvasive device suggests that this method is a good “complement” to conventional monitoring by a 24-hour Holter recording or an implanted loop recorder in recent stroke patients, as called for in current guidelines of the world’s cardiology societies.
In the study, 294 of 1,079 patients hospitalized for an acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) underwent Holter monitoring, which identified 8 patients (3%) with AF, compared with 25 of these 294 patients (9%) identified with AF while they were hospitalized using serial, 30-second monitoring with the AliveCor device for smartphone assessment of ECG measurement, Bernard Yan, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Seven of the eight patients identified with AF by Holter monitoring were also found to have AF by the AliveCor device.
Dr. Yan, an interventional neurologist at the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, attributed the higher pick-up rate for AF by monitoring during hospitalization to the timing of screening, which was within days of the stroke or TIA, rather than waiting to run a Holter sometime after the patient left the hospital.
“I suspect the difference in timing explains the difference” in detection, he said in an interview. “The difference may be because we monitored patients [with the AliveCor device] much earlier, during their ‘hot’ period, right after their stroke.”
The SPOT-AF trial ran at several centers in Australia, China, and Hong Kong, and enrolled 1,079 patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke or TIA who all underwent AliveCor monitoring during their median 4-day stay in the hospital. Patients performed a 30-second heart rhythm check every time a nurse saw them for a routine vital-sign examination, usually three or four times a day. The current analysis focused on the 294 patients (27% of the 1,079 patients) who also underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring following hospital discharge when ordered by their personal physician. This 27% incidence of postdischarge Holter monitoring despite guidelines that call for AF screening in all recent ischemic stroke and TIA patients was consistent with a 2016 review of more than 17,000 stroke or TIA patients in Canada that showed 31% underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring for AF during the 30 days following their index event (Stroke. 2016 Aug;47[8]:1982-9).
Although AF screening with a smartphone-based device is inexpensive and easy, Dr. Yan stopped short of suggesting that it is time for this approach to replace a Holter monitor or an implanted loop recorder because that is what current guidelines call for. “To change the guidelines, we need a different study that compares these approaches head to head.”
SPOT-AF received partial funding from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Yan has been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Stryker.
MONTREAL – A smartphone-based method for quick and inexpensive monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized for a recent acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack identified three times more patients with the arrhythmia than did 24-hour Holter monitoring of the same patients after their hospital discharge.
This high level of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection using a relatively cheap and noninvasive device suggests that this method is a good “complement” to conventional monitoring by a 24-hour Holter recording or an implanted loop recorder in recent stroke patients, as called for in current guidelines of the world’s cardiology societies.
In the study, 294 of 1,079 patients hospitalized for an acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) underwent Holter monitoring, which identified 8 patients (3%) with AF, compared with 25 of these 294 patients (9%) identified with AF while they were hospitalized using serial, 30-second monitoring with the AliveCor device for smartphone assessment of ECG measurement, Bernard Yan, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Seven of the eight patients identified with AF by Holter monitoring were also found to have AF by the AliveCor device.
Dr. Yan, an interventional neurologist at the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, attributed the higher pick-up rate for AF by monitoring during hospitalization to the timing of screening, which was within days of the stroke or TIA, rather than waiting to run a Holter sometime after the patient left the hospital.
“I suspect the difference in timing explains the difference” in detection, he said in an interview. “The difference may be because we monitored patients [with the AliveCor device] much earlier, during their ‘hot’ period, right after their stroke.”
The SPOT-AF trial ran at several centers in Australia, China, and Hong Kong, and enrolled 1,079 patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke or TIA who all underwent AliveCor monitoring during their median 4-day stay in the hospital. Patients performed a 30-second heart rhythm check every time a nurse saw them for a routine vital-sign examination, usually three or four times a day. The current analysis focused on the 294 patients (27% of the 1,079 patients) who also underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring following hospital discharge when ordered by their personal physician. This 27% incidence of postdischarge Holter monitoring despite guidelines that call for AF screening in all recent ischemic stroke and TIA patients was consistent with a 2016 review of more than 17,000 stroke or TIA patients in Canada that showed 31% underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring for AF during the 30 days following their index event (Stroke. 2016 Aug;47[8]:1982-9).
Although AF screening with a smartphone-based device is inexpensive and easy, Dr. Yan stopped short of suggesting that it is time for this approach to replace a Holter monitor or an implanted loop recorder because that is what current guidelines call for. “To change the guidelines, we need a different study that compares these approaches head to head.”
SPOT-AF received partial funding from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Yan has been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Stryker.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Holter monitoring detected atrial fibrillation in 8 of 294 patients, while smartphone monitoring identified 25 with the arrhythmia.
Study details: SPOT-AF, a multicenter study with 1,079 total patients, including 294 who underwent Holter monitoring.
Disclosures: SPOT-AF received partial funding from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Yan has been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Stryker.
