contrast-agent-p792 and Ischemic-Stroke

The benefit of distinguishing between disabling versus nondisabling deficit in mild acute ischemic stroke due to endovascular thrombectomy-targetable vessel occlusion (EVT-tVO; including anterior circulation large and medium-vessel occlusion) is unknown. We compared safety and efficacy of acute reperfusion treatments in disabling versus nondisabling mild EVT-tVO.. From the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register, we included consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients (2015-2021) treated within 4.5 hours, with full NIHSS items availability and score ≤5, evidence of intracranial internal carotid artery, M1, A1-2, or M2-3 occlusion. After propensity score matching, we compared efficacy (3-month modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1, modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2, and early neurological improvement) and safety (nonhemorrhagic early neurological deterioration, any intracerebral or subarachnoid hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death at 3-month) outcomes in disabling versus nondisabling patients-adopting an available definition.. We included 1459 patients. Propensity score matched analysis of disabling versus nondisabling EVT-tVO (n=336 per group) found no significant differences in efficacy (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1: 67.4% versus 71.5%,. We found similar safety and efficacy outcomes after acute reperfusion treatment in disabling versus nondisabling mild EVT-tVO; our findings suggest to adopt similar acute treatment approaches in the 2 groups. Randomized data are needed to clarify the best reperfusion treatment in mild EVT-tVO.

Topics: Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Ischemic Stroke; Reperfusion; Stroke; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage