Direct Mechanical Intervention Versus Combined Intravenous and Mechanical Intervention in Large Artery Anterior Circulation Stroke: A Matched-Pairs Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Five randomized controlled trials have consistently shown that mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in addition to best medical treatment (±intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator) improves outcome after acute ischemic stroke in patients with large artery anterior circulation stroke. Whether direct MT is equally effective as combined intravenous thrombolysis with MT (ie, bridging thrombolysis) remains unclear. METHODS We retrospectively compared clinical and radiological outcomes in 167 bridging patients with 255 patients receiving direct MT because of large artery anterior circulation stroke. We matched all patients from the direct MT group who would have qualified for intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator with controls from the bridging group, using multivariate and propensity score analyses. Functional independence was defined as modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2. RESULTS From February 2009 to August 2014, 40 patients from the direct MT group would have qualified for bridging thrombolysis but were treated with MT only. Clinical and radiological characteristics did not differ from the bridging cohort, except for higher rates of hypercholesterolemia (P=0.019), coronary heart disease (P=0.039), and shorter intervals from symptom onset to endovascular intervention (P=0.01) in the direct MT group. Functional independence, mortality, and intracerebral hemorrhage rates did not differ (P>0.1). After multivariate matching analysis outcome in both groups did not differ, except for lower rates of asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (P=0.023) and lower mortality (P=0.007) in the direct MT group. CONCLUSIONS In patients with large anterior circulation stroke, direct mechanical intervention seems to be equally effective as bridging thrombolysis. A randomized trial comparing direct MT with bridging therapy is warranted.

Innovation and Development in the Age of Climate Change Adaptation: Open or Closed?

Change Adaptation: Open or Closed? Paper read at the Second African International Economic Law Network Conference, 7-8 March 2013, Wits School of Law, Johannesburg, South Africa. In a time of rapid convergence of technologies, goods, services, hardware, software, the traditional classifications that informed past treaties fail to remove legal uncertainty, or advance welfare and innovation. As a result, we turn our attention to the role and needs of the public domain at the interface of existing intellectual property rights and new modes of creation, production and distribution of goods and services. The concept of open culture would have it that knowledge should be spread freely and its growth should come from further developing existing works on the basis of sharing and collaboration without the shackles of intellectual property. Intellectual property clauses find their way into regional, multilateral, bilateral and free trade agreements more often than not, and can cause public discontent and incite unrest. Many of these intellectual property clauses raise the bar on protection beyond the clauses found in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In this paper we address the question of the protection and development of the public domain in service of open innovation in accord with Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in light of the Objectives (Article 7) and Principles (Article 8) set forth in TRIPS. Once areas of divergence and reinforcement between the intellectual property regime and human rights have been discussed, we will enter into options that allow for innovation and prosperity in the global south. We then conclude by discussing possible policy developments.