Recanalization and Angiographic Reperfusion Are Both Associated with a Favorable Clinical Outcome in the IMS III Trial

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Prompt revascularization is the main goal of acute ischemic stroke treatment. We examined which revascularization scale - reperfusion (modified Treatment in Cerebral Infarctions, mTICI) or recanalization (Arterial Occlusive Lesion, AOL) - better predicted the clinical outcome in ischemic stroke participants treated with endovascular therapy (EVT). Additionally, we determined the optimal thresholds for the predictive accuracy of each scale. Methods: We included participants from the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial with complete occlusion in the internal carotid artery terminus or proximal middle cerebral artery (M1 or M2) who completed EVT within 7 h of symptom onset. The abilities of the AOL and mTICI scales to predict a favorable outcome (defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 3 months) were compared by receiver operating characteristic analyses. The maximal sensitivity and specificity for each revascularization scale were established. Results: Among 240 participants who met the study inclusion criteria, 79 (33%) achieved a favorable outcome. Higher scores of mTICI and AOL increased the likelihood of a favorable outcome (2.7% with mTICI 0 vs. 83.3% with mTICI 3, and 3.0% with AOL 0 vs. 43% with AOL 3). The accuracy of mTICI reperfusion and AOL recanalization for a favorable outcome prediction was similar, with optimal thresholds of mTICI 2b/3 and AOL 3, respectively. Conclusion: Reperfusion (mTICI) and recanalization (AOL) predicted a favorable clinical outcome with comparable accuracy in ischemic stroke participants treated with EVT. Optimal revascularization goals to maximize clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2) consisted of complete recanalization (AOL 3) and reperfusion of at least 50% of the arterial tree of the symptomatic artery (mTICI 2b/3) in the IMS III trial setting.

Related collections

Most cited references 2

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Revascularization end points in stroke interventional trials: recanalization versus reperfusion in IMS-I.

Michael P. Broderick, Vicky Khoury, Thomas Tomsick … (2005)

The acute stroke literature lacks a standard convention regarding the critical end point of revascularization. Two distinct parameters may be clinically important: (1) recanalization of the primary arterial occlusive lesion (AOL) and (2) global reperfusion of the distal vascular bed. We sought to determine their relationship in the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) Phase I trial of combined intravenous (IV) and intraarterial (IA) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. Sixty-one angiograms were reanalyzed using recanalization and reperfusion scores. The AOL Score was defined as: 0=no recanalization of the primary occlusion, I=incomplete or partial recanalization of the primary occlusion with no distal flow, II=incomplete or partial recanalization of the primary occlusion with distal flow, or III=complete recanalization of the primary occlusion with distal flow. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Score was defined as: 0=no perfusion, 1=perfusion past the initial occlusion but no distal branch filling, 2=perfusion and incomplete or slow distal branch filling, or 3=full perfusion with filling of all distal branches. We compared the 2 scores with one another and with good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Score zero to 2). AOL and TIMI scores showed modest agreement (kappa, 0.30; confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.44). Good clinical outcome was seen in 49% of patients with AOL II/III scores (P=0.055) and 54% with TIMI 2/3 scores (P=0.019). The 2 methods did not significantly differ in predicting outcome (P=0.13). AOL recanalization and TIMI reperfusion scores comparably predict clinical outcome in this treatment paradigm. Other modalities may show different relationships between these 2 revascularization end points. Future studies should distinguish between these parameters semantically and methodologically.

0 comments Cited 54 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Methodology of the Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial.

Yuko Y. Palesch, , Scott Janis … (2008)

The Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) I and II pilot trials demonstrated that the combined intravenous (i.v.) and intraarterial (i.a.) approach to recanalization may be more effective than standard i.v. rt-PA (Activase) alone for moderate-to-large National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS>or=10) strokes, and with a similar safety profile. The primary objective of this NIH-funded, Phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial is to determine whether a combined i.v./i.a. approach to recanalization is superior to standard i.v. rt-PA alone when initiated within 3 h of acute ischemic stroke onset. The IMS III trial will develop and maintain a network of interventional centers to test the safety, feasibility, and potential efficacy of new FDA-approved catheter devices as part of a combined i.v./i.a. approach to recanalization as the IMS III study progresses. A secondary objective of the IMS III trial is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the combined i.v./i.a. approach as compared with standard i.v. rt-PA. Trial enrollment began in July of 2006. A projected 900 subjects with moderate-to-large (NIHSS>or=10) ischemic strokes between ages 18 and 80 will be enrolled over the next 5 years at 40-plus centers in the United States and Canada. Patients must have i.v. treatment initiated within 3 h of stroke onset in both arms. Subjects will be randomized in a 2 : 1 ratio with more subjects enrolled in the combined i.v./i.a. group. The i.v. rt-PA alone group will receive the standard full dose [0.9 mg/kg, 90 mg maximum (10% as bolus)] of rt-PA intravenously over an hour. The combined i.v./i.a. group will receive a lower dose of i.v. rt-PA ( approximately 0.6 mg/kg, 60 mg maximum) over 40 min, followed by immediate angiography. If a treatable thrombus is not demonstrated, no i.a. therapy will be administered. If an appropriate thrombus is identified, treatment will continue with either the Concentric Merci thrombus-removal device, infusion of rt-PA and delivery of low-intensity ultrasound at the site of the occlusion via the EKOS Micro-Infusion Catheter, or infusion of rt-PA via a standard microcatheter. If i.a. rt-Pa therapy is the chosen strategy, a maximum of 22 mg of i.a. rt-PA may be given. The choice of i.a. strategy will be made by the treating neurointerventionalist. The i.a. treatment must begin within 5 h and be completed within 7 h of stroke onset. The primary outcome measure is a favorable clinical outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale Score of 0-2 at 3 months. The primary safety measure is mortality at 3 months and symptomatic ICH within the 24 h of randomization.

0 comments Cited 48 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): INE

Journal ID (pmc): INE

Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.1664-5545

Title: Interventional Neurology

Abbreviated Title: Intervent Neurol

Publisher: S. Karger AG (Basel, Switzerland karger@ 123456karger.com http://www.karger.com )

ISSN (Print): 1664-9737

ISSN (Electronic): 1664-5545

Publication date (Print): September 2016

Publication date (Electronic): 16 June 2016

Volume: 5

Issue: 3-4

Pages: 118-122

Affiliations

^aDepartment of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; ^bMedical University of South Carolina (MUSC), Charleston, S.C., ^cUniversity of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, and ^dUniversity of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, Calif., USA

Article

Publisher ID: INE20160053-4118 Pmcid ID: PMC5075813 Other ID: Intervent Neurol 2016;5:118-122

DOI: 10.1159/000446749

PMC ID: PMC5075813

PubMed ID: 27781039

SO-VID: 496d2419-1768-4a8b-962a-b298c789b641

License:

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

History

Page count

Figures: 2, Tables: 1, References: 11, Pages: 5

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 2

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 773

See all reference authors

- Version 1

Call for Papers: Sex and Gender in Neurodegenerative Diseases

Submit here before September 30, 2024