Selection of Candidates for Endovascular Treatment: Characteristics According to Three Different Selection Methods

Background and Purpose To investigate the number and characteristics of patients eligible for endovascular treatment (EVT) determined using three different selection methods: clinical-core mismatch, target mismatch, and collateral status. Methods Using the data of consecutive patients from two prospectively maintained registries of university medical centers, the number and characteristics of patients according to the three selection methods were investigated and their correlation was analyzed. Patients with anterior circulation stroke due to occlusion of the middle cerebral and/or internal carotid artery and a National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of ≥6 points, who arrived within 8 hours or between 6 and 12 hours of symptom onset and underwent magnetic resonance imaging prior to EVT, were included. Collateral status was assessed using magnetic resonance perfusion-derived collateral flow maps. Results Three hundred thirty-five patients were investigated; the proportions of patients who were eligible and ineligible for EVT in all three selection methods were both small (n=85, 25.4%; n=54, 16.1%, respectively). The intercorrelation among the three selection methods was low (κ=0.235). The baseline NIHSS score and onset-to-selection time interval were associated with the presence of clinical-core mismatch, while the penumbra/core volume ratio and onset-to-selection time interval were related to target mismatch; none of these variables were associated with collateral status. The infarct core volume was associated with favorable profiles in all three selection methods. Conclusions Although the application of individual selection methods resulted in favorable outcomes after EVT in clinical trials, there is a significant discrepancy in EVT eligibility depending on the selection method used.

[1]  J. Baron,et al.  Better Collaterals Are Independently Associated With Post-Thrombolysis Recanalization Before Thrombectomy , 2019, Stroke.

[2]  L. Schwamm,et al.  DEFUSE 3 Non-DAWN Patients: A Closer Look at Late Window Thrombectomy Selection , 2019, Stroke.

[3]  J. Broderick,et al.  Results From DEFUSE 3: Good Collaterals Are Associated With Reduced Ischemic Core Growth but Not Neurologic Outcome , 2019, Stroke.

[4]  Jin Woo Kim,et al.  Collateral status affects the onset-to-reperfusion time window for good outcome , 2018, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[5]  A. Demchuk,et al.  Thrombectomy for Stroke at 6 to 16 Hours with Selection by Perfusion Imaging , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  M. Chen,et al.  Thrombectomy 6 to 24 Hours after Stroke with a Mismatch between Deficit and Infarct , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  C. Chung,et al.  Impact of Slow Blood Filling via Collaterals on Infarct Growth: Comparison of Mismatch and Collateral Status , 2016, Journal of stroke.

[8]  Adnan H Siddiqui,et al.  Time to Treatment With Endovascular Thrombectomy and Outcomes From Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis. , 2016, JAMA.

[9]  D. Liebeskind,et al.  Impact of Time-to-Reperfusion on Outcome in Patients with Poor Collaterals , 2015, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[10]  Chin-Sang Chung,et al.  A novel magnetic resonance imaging approach to collateral flow imaging in ischemic stroke , 2014, Annals of neurology.

[11]  Gerhard Schroth,et al.  Endovascular Therapy of 623 Patients With Anterior Circulation Stroke , 2012, Stroke.

[12]  C. Molina,et al.  Extending the Time Window for Endovascular Procedures According to Collateral Pial Circulation , 2011, Stroke.

[13]  D. Liebeskind,et al.  Impact of Baseline Tissue Status (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Lesion) Versus Perfusion Status (Severity of Hypoperfusion) on Hemorrhagic Transformation , 2010, Stroke.