Endovascular vs medical management of acute ischemic stroke

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the outcomes between endovascular and medical management of acute ischemic stroke in recent randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Methods:

A systematic literature review was performed, and multicenter, prospective RCTs published from January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2015, directly comparing endovascular therapy to medical management for patients with acute ischemic stroke were included. Meta-analyses of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 90 days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) for endovascular therapy and medical management were performed.

Results:

Eight multicenter, prospective RCTs (Interventional Management of Stroke [IMS] III, Local Versus Systemic Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke [SYNTHESIS] Expansion, Mechanical Retrieval and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy [MR RESCUE], Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands [MR CLEAN], Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness [ESCAPE], Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial [EXTEND-IA], Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment [SWIFT PRIME], and Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within 8 Hours [REVASCAT]) comprising 2,423 patients were included. Meta-analysis of pooled data demonstrated functional independence (mRS 0–2) at 90 days in favor of endovascular therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71; p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of the 6 trials with large vessel occlusion (LVO) criteria also demonstrated functional independence at 90 days in favor of endovascular therapy (OR = 2.23; p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis of the 5 trials that primarily utilized stent retriever devices (≥70%) in the intervention arm demonstrated functional independence at 90 days in favor of endovascular therapy (OR = 2.39; p < 0.00001). No difference was found for mortality at 90 days and sICH between endovascular therapy and medical management in all analyses and subgroup analyses.

Conclusions:

This meta-analysis provides strong evidence that endovascular intervention combined with medical management, including IV tissue plasminogen activator for eligible patients, improves the outcomes of appropriately selected patients with acute ischemic stroke in the setting of LVO.

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) affects approximately 795,000 patients in the United States annually.¹ The presence of large vessel occlusion (LVO) of a major intracranial artery, most commonly the middle cerebral artery or internal carotid artery (ICA), is estimated to occur in approximately one-third to one-half of AIS.² Until recently, the only therapy for AIS with proven efficacy was IV tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) administered within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.^3,4 However, recanalization rates of AIS with LVO after IV-tPA are low and associated with poor clinical outcomes.⁵

Endovascular therapy is a potentially efficacious adjunct to IV-tPA for patients with acute LVO. However, 3 failed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of endovascular stroke therapy significantly dampened the initial enthusiasm for endovascular intervention.^6–8 Methodologic weaknesses have been the main criticisms of these trials.⁹ More recently, several endovascular stroke trials have addressed the shortcomings of the initial trials, and all have reported superior outcomes with endovascular therapy for AIS.^10–14 The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the rates of functional independence, mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) between endovascular and medical management of AIS in modern RCTs. We hypothesize consistent safety and efficacy in the combined data.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria.

The inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis were as follows: (1) the study must be a multicenter, prospective, RCT published from January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2015; (2) the study must directly compare outcomes between endovascular therapy and medical management for patients with AIS.

Literature search.

A systematic literature review was performed in PubMed on May 1, 2015, using the search term stroke from 2013 to present. Following the search, the articles were then screened by title and abstract for the aforementioned inclusion criteria. The remaining articles underwent further detailed review for relevance and usable data.

Literature review and data extraction.

No registered review protocol was utilized in this study. This review follows the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Available study, demographic, baseline clinical and radiographic, intervention, and outcomes data were extracted from studies included for analysis. Study, demographic, and baseline clinical and radiographic data included trial period, number of centers involved, trial locations, number of patients, and trial enrollment criteria, such as time from symptom onset, age, LVO, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS), and NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS).¹⁵ LVO refers to the presence of thrombus within proximal intracranial vessels on imaging, which may be due to carotid disease, cardioembolism, or other sources of thromboembolus. Treatment data included the therapeutic modalities utilized in the intervention and control arms, number of intent-to-treat (ITT) patients, number of patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy, IV/intra-arterial (IA)–tPA, median/mean NIHSS score, median/mean ASPECTS, median/mean age, LVO on imaging, number of patients who underwent general anesthesia, and median/mean time from symptom onset to IV-tPA or groin puncture. Outcomes data included successful angiographic revascularization, defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia grade 2b or 3, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days following intervention, sICH, neurologic deterioration, malignant cerebral edema, and recurrent stroke.

Statistical analysis.

Descriptive statistics were determined using SPSS version 20.0.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY; 2011), while statistical analyses of pooled data comparing mRS scores and sICH were performed using Review Manager version 5.2.8 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012). Odds ratios (ORs) for the included studies were computed using the Mantel-Haenszel test. Under the assumptions of possible clinical diversity and methodologic differences among the included studies, a random-effects model was implemented in the analyses to account for sampling variation and random variation from each individual study. Study heterogeneity was detected using the χ² and I² test statistics. Significant heterogeneity was considered to be present when both the χ² value was within 10% level of significance (p < 0.10) and the I² value exceeded 50%. Risks of bias were assessed at study level in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.¹⁶ All statistical tests were 2-sided, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Study selection.

The search yielded 8 multicenter, prospective RCTs: Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III, Local Versus Systemic Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke (SYNTHESIS) Expansion, Mechanical Retrieval and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE), Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN), Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE), Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial (EXTEND-IA), Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment (SWIFT PRIME), and Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within 8 Hours (REVASCAT), comprising a total of 2,423 patients for inclusion in the meta-analysis.^{6–8,10–14} All studies were reviewed for risks of bias, and all demonstrated low risks for selection, detection, attrition, and reporting biases. However, the studies were judged to have high risk for performance bias, since the participants and treatment teams were not blinded. Other biases included early study termination in 5 studies (REVASCAT, SWIFT PRIME, IMS III, EXTEND-IA, and ESCAPE), a limited number of patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy in one study (SYNTHESIS Expansion), and imaging protocol violations in one study (ESCAPE).^6,8,11–14

Demographics and study characteristics.

Table 1 summarizes the designs of the included studies. Of the 8 multicenter, prospective RCTs included in this review, 3 studies were published in 2013 and 5 in 2015. The total number of participating centers was 195 (range 4–58 centers). Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the intervention and control arms of the included studies. The numbers of ITT patients in the intervention and control arms were 1,313 and 1,110 patients, respectively. IV-tPA was administered in 988 (75%) and 989 (89%) patients of the intervention and control arms, respectively. Mechanical thrombectomy using retrievable stent (stent retriever) devices was performed in 569 (43%) patients of the intervention arm. IA-tPA was administered in 498 (38%) patients of the intervention arm. LVO was present in 888 (78%) and 799 (86%) patients of the intervention and control arms, respectively. General anesthesia was administered in 143 (30%) patients of the intervention arm.

Table 1.

Randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis

Table 2.

Characteristics of intervention and control arms of the included randomized controlled trials

Outcomes and complications after intervention vs medical management stratified by LVO criteria.

Table 3 details the mRS scores at 90 days for intervention and control arms of the included studies. Of the 1,293 patients in the intervention arms with follow-up assessment, 140 (11%), 216 (17%), 201 (16%), 225 (17%), 209 (16%), 84 (6%), and 218 (17%) patients had mRS scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 at 90 days, respectively. Follow-up assessment at 90 days was available in 1,094 patients of the control arms; 81 (7%), 130 (12%), 140 (13%), 181 (17%), 240 (22%), 121 (11%), and 201 (18%) patients had mRS scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively (figure e-1 on the Neurology® Web site at Neurology.org). Three studies found no difference between the 2 arms, whereas 5 studies found endovascular therapy to yield significantly better outcomes than medical management. Angiographic revascularization was achieved in 565 (56%) of 1,005 patients. Compared to the 2013 studies, all recent studies in 2015 achieved higher successful reperfusion rates with endovascular intervention.

Table 3.

Randomized controlled trial outcomes

Meta-analysis of pooled data based on the random effects model from the 8 included trials (figure 1A) demonstrated functional independence (mRS score 0–2) at 90 days in favor of endovascular stroke intervention (OR 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18–2.49; p = 0.005). There was heterogeneity among the included trials in this analysis (χ² = 28.47; p = 0.0002; I² = 75%). Subgroup analysis of the 6 trials which included only those patients with evidence of LVO on baseline neuroimaging (LVO criteria) also demonstrated functional independence in favor of endovascular therapy (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.70–2.93; p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis of the 2 trials without LVO criteria demonstrated no difference in functional independence between the 2 arms (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.76–1.30; p = 0.94). There was a difference between the subgroups (χ² = 17.46; p < 0.0001; I² = 94.3%).

Figure 1. Functional independence (mRS 0–2) and mortality (mRS 6) at 90 days and sICH after endovascular vs medical management of AIS stratified by LVO criteria.

Forest plot of odds ratios (ORs) for (A) functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0–2) at 90 days, (B) mortality (mRS 6) at 90 days, and (C) symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) for endovascular versus medical management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The included trials are divided into subgroups: trials with large vessel occlusion (LVO) criteria and trials without LVO criteria. The estimated OR and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each included study is represented by the center of the squares and the horizontal line, respectively. The summary OR and 95% CI are shown in bold, and are represented by solid diamond. Tests of heterogeneity and overall effect are given below the summary statistics. ESCAPE = Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness; EXTEND-IA = Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial; IMS III = Interventional Management of Stroke III; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel; MR CLEAN = Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands; MR RESCUE = Mechanical Retrieval and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy; REVASCAT = Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within 8 Hours; SWIFT PRIME = Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment; SYNTHESIS = Local Versus Systemic Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

No difference in mortality at 90 days was demonstrated in the meta-analysis of pooled data based on the random effects model (figure 1B) from the 8 included studies (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.67–1.12; p = 0.27). Subgroup analysis of the 6 trials with LVO criteria also demonstrated no difference in mortality between the 2 arms (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.59–1.05; p = 0.11). Subgroup analysis of the 2 trials without LVO criteria also demonstrated no difference in mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.63–1.86; p = 0.77). No difference between the subgroups was found (χ² = 1.04; p = 0.31; I² = 4.0%).

Meta-analysis of pooled data based on the random effects model (figure 1C) from the 8 included studies for sICH demonstrated no difference between the 2 arms (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77–1.63; p = 0.56). Subgroup analyses of the 6 trials with LVO criteria (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.71–2.03; p = 0.50) and 2 trials without LVO criteria (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.60–1.80; p = 0.88) also demonstrated no difference in sICH between the 2 arms. No difference between the subgroups was found (χ² = 0.13; p = 0.72; I² = 0%).

Outcomes and complications after intervention vs medical management stratified by use of stent retriever device.

Subgroup analysis (figure 2A) of the 5 trials that primarily utilized (≥70%) stent retriever devices in the intervention arm demonstrated functional independence at 90 days in favor of endovascular therapy (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.88–3.04; p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis of the 3 trials that did not primarily utilize stent retriever devices demonstrated no difference in functional independence between the 2 arms (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77–1.26; p = 0.90). There was a difference between the subgroups (χ² = 25.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 96.0%).

Figure 2. Functional independence (mRS 0–2) and mortality (mRS 6) at 90 days and sICH after endovascular vs medical management of AIS stratified by use of stent retriever device.

Forest plot of odds ratios (ORs) for (A) functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0–2) at 90 days, (B) mortality (mRS 6) at 90 days, and (C) symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) for endovascular versus medical management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The included trials are divided into subgroups: trials that used stent retriever device for ≥70% of endovascular therapies and trials that used stent retriever device for <70% of endovascular therapies. The estimated OR and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each included study is represented by the center of the squares and the horizontal line, respectively. The summary OR and 95% CI are shown in bold, and are represented by solid diamond. Tests of heterogeneity and overall effect are given below the summary statistics. ESCAPE = Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness; EXTEND-IA = Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial; IMS III = Interventional Management of Stroke III; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel; MR CLEAN = Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands; MR RESCUE = Mechanical Retrieval and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy; REVASCAT = Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within 8 Hours; SWIFT PRIME = Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment; SYNTHESIS = Local Versus Systemic Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Subgroup analyses (figure 2B) of the 5 trials that primarily utilized stent retrievers (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.54–1.11; p = 0.17) and the 3 trials that did not primarily utilize stent retrievers (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.67–1.46; p = 0.95) did not find difference in mortality at 90 days between the 2 arms. No difference between the subgroups was found (χ² = 0.80; p = 0.37; I² = 0%).

No difference in rates of sICH between the 2 arms was found in the subgroup analyses (figure 2C) of the 5 trials that primarily utilized stent retriever devices (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.63–2.18; p = 0.61) and the 3 trials that did not primarily utilize stent retrievers (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.63–1.78; p = 0.83). No difference between the subgroups was found (χ² = 0.06; p = 0.80; I² = 0%).

Table e-1 summarizes the major complications in the intervention and control arms of the included studies.

DISCUSSION

Despite the therapeutic benefits of IV-tPA for AIS, outcomes for patients with LVO remain poor. Recanalization rates with IV-tPA have been reported to range from 17% to 38% in the literature.^5,17–19 There is a strong correlation between recanalization and good functional outcome. Bhatia et al.⁵ found a higher rate of functional independence (relative risk 2.5, 95% CI 1.4–4.3) and reduced mortality in patients with recanalization compared to those without recanalization. Additionally, the same study observed that patients with early recanalization had better outcome than those with late recanalization. In light of the better outcomes associated with successful and earlier recanalization, the search for additional therapies to improve recanalization rates have led to recent trials investigating the efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy for AIS.

Three early trials (IMS III, SYNTHESIS Expansion, and MR RESCUE) published in 2013 attempted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy compared to medical management for AIS.^6–8 All 3 trials reported a lack of significant difference in outcome between endovascular therapy and medical management, thus casting skepticism on the clinical benefit of endovascular stroke therapy. However, these earlier trials have substantial limitations, most notably the lack of LVO confirmation on initial neuroimaging and the use of early generation endovascular devices leading to low recanalization rates.^20,21 In fact, a significantly higher rate of recanalization in proximal occlusions with endovascular therapy were observed in subgroup analyses of patients who underwent screening for LVO in IMS III, and ICA T- or L-type and tandem ICA and M1 occlusions demonstrated a trend toward better outcome with endovascular treatment.^22,23

Two prior RCTs, Trevo versus Merci Retrievers for Thrombectomy Revascularisation of Large Vessel Occlusions in Acute Ischaemic Stroke (TREVO 2) and SWIFT, demonstrated significantly higher recanalization rates associated with stent retriever devices compared to the early generation Merci Retriever (Concentric Medical, Fremont, CA).^24,25 TREVO 2 reported a higher rate of reperfusion (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia scores of 2 or greater) using the TREVO (Stryker Neurovascular, Fremont, CA) stent retriever compared to the Merci Retriever (OR 4.22, p < 0.0001).²⁴ Similarly, the SWIFT trial reported a higher rate of reperfusion (thrombolysis in myocardial ischemia score 2 or 3; OR 4.87, p = 0.0001), higher rate of good 3-month neurologic outcome (OR 2.78, p = 0.02), and lower rate of 90-day mortality (OR 0.34, p = 0.02) for patients treated with the Solitaire Flow Restoration (ev3 Neurovascular, Irvine, CA) stent retriever device compared to those treated with the Merci Retriever.²⁵

The more recent trials (MR CLEAN, SWIFT PRIME, EXTEND-IA, ESCAPE, and REVASCAT) have addressed the major criticisms of the earlier studies by selecting for patients with LVO based on admission neuroimaging and using stent retrievers in the majority of patients undergoing endovascular intervention.^10–14 All of these trials individually demonstrated superiority of endovascular therapy over medical management for AIS with LVO. A meta-analysis of the trials with LVO enrollment criteria found higher rates of functional independence (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.70–2.93; p < 0.00001) for endovascular therapy compared to medical management, with no statistical difference in mortality or sICH. Stratification by the primary (≥70%) use of stent retrievers also found higher rates of functional independence with endovascular therapy (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.88–3.04; p < 0.00001). Other contributors to the success of the recent trials included the use of more sophisticated radiographic criteria, such as ASPECTS and volume mismatch ratios on perfusion imaging, to exclude patients with large core infarcts who are unlikely to attain clinical benefit from revascularization.^11–14 Despite the heterogeneity of the included RCTs, this meta-analysis provides strong evidence for the management of acute LVO with endovascular intervention combined with best medical therapy, including IV-tPA in eligible patients. Furthermore, our subgroup analyses suggest that employing baseline neuroimaging to identify patients with AIS with LVO and performing endovascular intervention with stent retriever devices may yield a greater benefit from endovascular stroke therapy. Given the improved functional outcomes with endovascular therapy in the recent trials, one would assume concurrent improvements in mortality. However, with the exception of ESCAPE, other trials demonstrated no difference in mortality rates.¹²

The recent trials are not without limitations. Early trial terminations occurred in ESCAPE, EXTEND-IA, SWIFT PRIME, and REVASCAT. EXTEND-IA and SWIFT PRIME were limited to only patients who were eligible for and treated with IV-tPA within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, and imaging protocol violations were observed in ESCAPE. Although outcome assessments were blinded, participants and treatment teams were not blinded, and thus susceptible to performance bias. Furthermore, endovascular therapy is not generalizable to all patients with AIS; patients selected for these trials comprise only a small proportion of patients presenting with AIS. In EXTEND-IA, only 70 of the 7,798 patients who were screened were ultimately enrolled in the trial (0.9%), and in SWIFT PRIME, only 196 of 1,470 patients who were screened were randomized (13%).^11,14

Our meta-analysis is limited by the pooled data available from the RCTs, with all of the limitations and weakness inherent to these studies. The variability in the methods of clinical and radiographic evaluation and in the enrollment criteria among trials remains difficult to overcome. Additionally, not all patients in each study arm underwent the same treatments. Specifically, not all patients in the intervention arms underwent mechanical thrombectomy, thrombectomy using the same device, or IA- or IV-tPA, and not all patients in the control arms were treated with IV-tPA. It should also be noted that no direct comparison of different stent retrievers or imaging selection criteria were performed in these studies. Thus, generalization of our findings to stent retrievers not used in these trials may be limited. The endovascular trials primarily addressed AIS with LVO of the anterior circulation; therefore, the results may not be generalizable to LVO of the posterior circulation (i.e., vertebrobasilar system).

Future subgroup analyses at the individual patient level from trial investigators will help to guide endovascular intervention in AIS for elderly patients (age over 80 years) and those with severe strokes (NIHSS over 20). Current literature suggests better outcome associated with endovascular stroke therapy performed under local anesthesia, rather than general anesthesia. However, further trials are needed to clarify this benefit.^26,27 Efficient workflow, with coordination among emergency medical services, emergency departments, radiology, stroke neurology, and neurointerventionalists, needs to be optimized in order to quickly identify acute LVO, rule out large core infarcts, and appropriately transport select AIS patients to an angiography suite for endovascular thrombectomy at the earliest possible time. Policies and protocols regarding stroke systems of care will need to incorporate mechanisms for rapid triage of select AIS patients to facilities capable of providing endovascular therapy.

Meta-analyses of modern multicenter, prospective RCTs comparing endovascular therapy to medical management for AIS demonstrated significantly higher rates of functional independence at 90 days in favor of endovascular therapy, with no difference in the rates of mortality or sICH. Patients with LVO on initial neuroimaging who underwent endovascular mechanical thrombectomy using stent retriever devices also demonstrated higher rates of functional independence at 90 days compared to medical management. This meta-analysis provides strong evidence that endovascular intervention combined with medical management, including administration of IV-tPA to eligible patients, is the standard of care for appropriately selected patients with acute ischemic stroke and LVO.

GLOSSARY

AIS

acute ischemic stroke

ASPECTS

Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score

CI

confidence interval

ESCAPE

Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness

EXTEND-IA

Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial

IA

intra-arterial

ICA

internal carotid artery

IMS III

Interventional Management of Stroke III

ITT

intent-to-treat

LVO

large vessel occlusion

MR CLEAN

Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands

MR RESCUE

Mechanical Retrieval and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy

mRS

modified Rankin Scale

NIHSS

NIH Stroke Scale

OR

odds ratio

RCT

randomized controlled trial

REVASCAT

Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within 8 Hours

sICH

symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage

SWIFT PRIME

Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment

SYNTHESIS

Local Versus Systemic Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke

tPA

tissue plasminogen activator

TREVO 2

Trevo versus Merci Retrievers for Thrombectomy Revascularisation of Large Vessel Occlusions in Acute Ischaemic Stroke

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Dr. Chen: study concept and design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dr. Ding: study concept and design, data interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dr. Starke: study concept and design, data interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dr. Mehndiratta: data interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dr. Crowley: data interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dr. Liu: data interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dr. Southerland: data interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, study supervision. Dr. Worrall: data interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, study supervision.

STUDY FUNDING

No targeted funding reported.

DISCLOSURE

C. Chen, D. Ding, R. Starke, P. Mehndiratta, R. Crowley, and K. Liu report no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. A. Southerland reports personal fees from Neurology Podcast, personal fees from Expert Legal Review, grants from American Heart Association–American Stroke Association, and grants from American Academy of Neurology, grants from American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Southerland has a patent Provisional Patent Application Serial Number 61/867,477, entitled “Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Improving Treatment Times for Rapid Evaluation of Acute Stroke via Mobile Telemedicine” pending. B. Worrall serves as associate editor of Neurology®. Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures.