Khan, Muhib

AbstractBackgroundCervical artery dissection (CAD) is a common cause of ischemic stroke in young adults. Local blood clot formation and distal emboli are the key mechanisms for the development of stroke in patients with CAD. Microemboli distal to the dissection point can be detected as high‐intensity transient signals (HITS) using transcranial Doppler (TCD). Despite this unique capability, TCD is used inconsistently in the management of CAD. In this international survey, we aim to explore the frequency and potential barriers to TCD use in CAD.MethodThis study was an international electronic survey, based on the Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection (STOP‐CAD) study, aiming at evaluating the use of TCD in diagnosing and managing CAD patients. A comprehensive questionnaire was developed to gather insights into the current practices, perceptions, and potential barriers to the effective use of TCD in participating centers. The collected data was then analyzed.ResultsFifty‐eight medical centers with advanced stroke care capabilities from Europe and United States participated in this study. Half (29 out of 58) of the sites routinely perform TCD on CAD patients, particularly in the presence of carotid or vertebral artery stenosis, complete carotid occlusion, and early neurologic deterioration. The primary reason for participating institutions not performing TCD was because its results would not change their practice. The protocol for TCD monitoring and managing HITS‐positive CAD patients varied among centers but transitioning from antiplatelet to anticoagulant was the most common practice in this patient population.ConclusionHalf of the stroke centers in our survey routinely perform TCD monitoring for CAD patients. The detection of HITS in CAD patients is a warning sign for providers, which may prompt a change in secondary stroke prevention management. However, a standard protocol for performing TCD in CAD and treatment recommendations for HITS‐positive CAD are not currently available, which warrants further research.

Background: Large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke patients are often transferred from regional hospitals to comprehensive stroke centers (CSC) for thrombectomy. The need for repeat imaging at CSCs prior to intervention is unclear. We compared regional hospital and CSC perfusion imaging results for interfacility transfers in a single health system. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of patients in western Michigan who received CT perfusion imaging before and after transfer to a CSC. Perfusion mismatch (MM), core infarct volume (CIV), and favorability of imaging for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) candidacy were compared between the regional and CSC studies. A favorable imaging profile was defined as the presence of LVO, MM volume >10 mL, and MM/CIV ratio of >1.2. Linear regression was used to examine predictors of infarct growth during transfer. Results: Over a 10-month period, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. The median age was 76 (IQR 66-81), 60% were male, median NIHSS was 11 (IQR 2-18), and most patients had occlusion of the internal carotid or middle cerebral arteries (72%). The median time from last known well to initial CT was 250 minutes (IQR 85-620). Regional median MM volume was 52 mL (IQR 8-97), CIV was 0 mL (IQR 0-13), and hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) was 0.25 (IQR 0-0.34). The median time between CTs was 152 minutes (IQR 139-226). The median change in MM volume was -3 mL (IQR -27-3) and median CIV growth rate was 0 mL/hr (IQR 0-2.0). In a multivariable regression model, higher HIR (β=23.2, p=0.012) and minutes between imaging studies (β=0.10, p=0.021) were associated with CIV growth. Sixteen patients (64%) had favorable imaging profiles for MT at the regional hospital. Of these, 15 (93.8%) continued to have a favorable CSC imaging profiles and 9 (56.2%) underwent MT. Of the 9 patients without favorable regional imaging profiles, 1 (11.1%) had a favorable CSC imaging profile and 2 (22.2%) underwent MT. Conclusion: In our sample, regional and CSC perfusion imaging patterns were similar and patients infrequently crossed thresholds for MT candidacy between studies. Initial HIR and longer delays between were independently associated with infarct growth during transfers, however overall infarct growth was very small.

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.