-In acute stroke, does the addition of intra-arterial management improve outcomes compared to usual care?
-Multicenter, randomized, open-label (but blinded end points) in the Netherlands. 502 patients in 16 centers.
-Comparing: (comparing intra-arterial intervention within 6 hours + usual care) vs. usual care.
-Required a radiologically proven intracranial occlusion for study eligibility
-Intervention was arterial catheterization and delivery of a thrombolytic agent, mechanical thrombectomy, or both, within 6 hours (method left up to the interventionist)
-Approx 90% in each group got TPA (considered usual care in this trial).
-The primary outcome was distribution of modified Rankin scale at 90 days. These favored the intervention group in all categories except death.
-Regarding patient who were functionally independent with Rankin score of 0-2, the was 32.6% in the intervention group vs. 19.1% in the control group.
-There were no differences in serious adverse events during 90 follow up period between groups.
-HOWEVER, there was a significant difference in the number of symptomatic new strokes in a different territory than the original stroke within 90 days in the intervention group (5.6% in intervention group vs. 0.4% control group)
-Also, some have noted that the TPA only group did very poorly in this trial compared to NINDS and IMS-3, which could make the intervention group look artificially superior.
Now, it always comes down to, would you want this for yourself or a loved one? I’m sure you’ll want to read more to decide.
Opinions and Summaries:
Watch the 2 minute NEJM summary video here: