Trends in revascularization therapies for patients with acute stroke with large infarcts: a population-based study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Evidence from randomized clinical trials shows that mechanical thrombectomy (MT) enhances functional outcomes in patients with large core ischemic stroke. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in the use of revascularization therapies, particularly MT, and their impact on functional outcomes in patients with large core ischemic stroke in routine clinical settings. METHODS: Observational data from the Stroke Code Registry of Catalonia (CICAT, 2016-2024) were analyzed. Patients with anterior circulation ischemic stroke and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) <6, whether treated with reperfusion therapies or not, were included. Statistical analyses included trend analysis and multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score 0-3 at 90 days) and mortality. RESULTS: Among 599 patients, MT use increased significantly from 22% pre-2022 to 36% post-2022. This increase was associated with improved functional outcomes, with favorable outcomes rising from 29% to 43% post-2022. MT was a significant independent predictor of favorable outcomes (OR 3.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 5.5) and reduced mortality (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.68). Intravenous thrombolysis also improved outcomes (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.5). The benefit of MT was consistent across ASPECTS subgroups (0-2 and 3-5). Mediation analysis indicated that 88% of improvement could be attributed to increased MT use. CONCLUSIONS: Increased MT use significantly improved outcomes for patients with large core ischemic stroke, particularly after 2022. Benefits were observed across subgroups, including those with very low ASPECTS. These findings support broadening MT access and suggest the need to update treatment guidelines to consider patients with large ischemic cores, aiming to optimize outcomes in routine clinical practice.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.