Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients: implications and interpretation of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials: A report from the Working Group of International Congress of Interventional Neurology

OBJECTIVE The results of Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III, Magnetic Resonance and REcanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE), and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials are expected to affect the practice of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this report is to review the components of the designs and methods of these trials and to describe the influence of those components on the interpretation of trial results. METHODS A critical review of trial design and conduct of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION is performed with emphasis on patient selection, shortcomings in procedural aspects, and methodology of data ascertainment and analysis. The influence of each component is estimated based on published literature including multicenter clinical trials reporting on endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. RESULTS We critically examined the time interval between symptom onset and treatment and rates of angiographic recanalization to differentiate between "endovascular treatment" and "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" as it relates to the IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials. All the three trials failed to effectively test "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" due to the delay between symptom onset and treatment and less than optimal rates of recanalization. In all the three trials, the magnitude of benefit with endovascular treatment required to reject the null hypothesis was larger than could be expected based on previous studies. The IMS III and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials demonstrated that rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages subsequent to treatment are similar between IV thrombolytics and endovascular treatment in matched acute ischemic stroke patients. The trials also indirectly validated the superiority/equivalence of IV thrombolytics (compared with endovascular treatment) in patients with minor neurological deficits and those without large vessel occlusion on computed tomographic/magnetic resonance angiography. CONCLUSIONS The results do not support a large magnitude benefit of endovascular treatment in subjects randomized in all the three trials. The possibility that benefits of a smaller magnitude exist in certain patient populations cannot be excluded. Large magnitude benefits can be expected with implementation of "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" in patients with ischemic stroke who are candidates for IV thrombolytics.

Clinical prediction of large vessel occlusion in anterior circulation stroke: mission impossible?

Simple clinical scores to predict large vessel occlusion (LVO) in acute ischemic stroke would be helpful to triage patients in the prehospital phase. We assessed the ability of various combinations of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) subitems and published stroke scales (i.e., RACE scale, 3I-SS, sNIHSS-8, sNIHSS-5, sNIHSS-1, mNIHSS, a-NIHSS items profiles A-E, CPSS1, CPSS2, and CPSSS) to predict LVO on CT or MR arteriography in 1085 consecutive patients (39.4 % women, mean age 67.7 years) with anterior circulation strokes within 6 h of symptom onset. 657 patients (61 %) had an occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the M1/M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery. Best cut-off value of the total NIHSS score to predict LVO was 7 (PPV 84.2 %, sensitivity 81.0 %, specificity 76.6 %, NPV 72.4 %, ACC 79.3 %). Receiver operating characteristic curves of various combinations of NIHSS subitems and published scores were equally or less predictive to show LVO than the total NIHSS score. At intersection of sensitivity and specificity curves in all scores, at least 1/5 of patients with LVO were missed. Best odds ratios for LVO among NIHSS subitems were best gaze (9.6, 95 %-CI 6.765-13.632), visual fields (7.0, 95 %-CI 3.981-12.370), motor arms (7.6, 95 %-CI 5.589-10.204), and aphasia/neglect (7.1, 95 %-CI 5.352-9.492). There is a significant correlation between clinical scores based on the NIHSS score and LVO on arteriography. However, if clinically relevant thresholds are applied to the scores, a sizable number of LVOs are missed. Therefore, clinical scores cannot replace vessel imaging.