Safety and Efficacy of Endovascular Treatment for Progressive Stroke in Patients With Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion

It is unknown the benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) for progressive stroke in patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EVT with standard medical therapy (SMT) in a population of BAO patients with progressive stroke. The EVT for...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in neurology Vol. 12; p. 774443
Main Authors Wang, Yinxu, Ke, Yingbing, Wang, Lingling, Wu, Qing, Zhou, Jing, Tan, Xiaolin, Liu, Jiazuo, Geng, Wanjie, Cheng, Daoyou, Liu, Zongtao, Yu, Yinquan, Song, Jiaxing, Qiu, Zhongming, Li, Fengli, Luo, Weidong, Yang, Jie, Zi, Wenjie, Wang, Xiaoming, Yuan, Zhengzhou
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 16.12.2021
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:It is unknown the benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) for progressive stroke in patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EVT with standard medical therapy (SMT) in a population of BAO patients with progressive stroke. The EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR) is a national prospective registry of consecutive patients with acute BAO within 24 h of symptom onset. According to the applied therapy, all patients were divided into SMT and EVT groups. Subsequently, the EVT group was divided into early (≤6 h) and late groups (>6 h) according to the time window. The efficacy outcome was favorable functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 3) at 90 days. The safety outcomes included mortality within 90 days and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) after EVT. The EVT cohort presented more frequently with a favorable functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 5.49; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-14.61, = 0.01) and with a decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.54, p < 0.001). What's more, EVT still safe ( = 0.584, = 0.492, respectively) and effective ( = 0.05) in patients with progressive stroke when the treatment time window exceeds 6 h. EVT was more effective and safer than SMT for progressive stroke in patients with BAO. Besides, EVT remains safe and effective in patients with progressive stroke when the treatment time window exceeds 6 h. Predictors of desirable outcome in progressive stroke patients undergoing EVT included lower baseline NIHSS score, higher baseline pc-ASPECTs, successful recanalization and shorter puncture to recanalization time.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Edited by: Tomohisa Nezu, Hiroshima University, Japan
This article was submitted to Stroke, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neurology
Reviewed by: Adrien Guenego, Stanford Healthcare, United States; Dylan N. Wolman, Stanford Healthcare, United States
These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
ISSN:1664-2295
1664-2295
DOI:10.3389/fneur.2021.774443