Nedelcu, Simona

Background: It is known that there are discrepancies between insurance status and access to care for a variety of health conditions. In addition, differences have been shown in initial in-hospital management of stroke as well as outcomes in the acute setting. We sought to examine the relationship between insurance status and risk of recurrent stroke, major bleeding or death following an incident cryptogenic stroke. Methods: Patients with cryptogenic stroke included in a multicenter (n=27 sites) retrospective observational cohort and complete insurance status were evaluated for a primary composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Insurance providers were categorized by Private/Veterans Administration, Medicare, Other, and Medicaid/pending/None, with the primary carrier ranked in that order when multiple insurance carriers applied. Descriptive statistics and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression were used to associate the primary insurance provider with the composite outcome, and with each unique secondary outcome, adjusting for age, stroke severity, pre-stroke disability, atherosclerotic risk factors, and potential embolic sources (e.g., patent foramen ovale). Results: Of the 2201 patients, 2006 (91.1%) had reported insurance information and were followed for a median of 1.50 years (interquartile range [IQR 0.41 - 2.99y]). The majority of patients were primary Medicare beneficiaries (42.3%), followed by private insurance (36.7%), Medicaid/none (18.1%) and Other (2.9%). Although there were important differences in demographic and neurodiagnostic results across insurance groups, compared to Private/VA beneficiaries, beneficiaries for Medicaid/pending/none had a higher rate of the composite outcome in adjusted regression (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.69) which was driven largely by the higher rate of recurrent stroke (adjusted HR 1.33, 95%CI, 1.02-1.73) with no significant difference in rate of major bleeding or death (p>0.05 for both). Conclusions: Independent of age, race, pre-existing disability, and atherosclerotic risk factors, insurance status was independently predictive of recurrent stroke in this diverse cohort of cryptogenic stroke.

Background: Left ventricular (LV) injury is a cardioembolic etiology of ischemic stroke. We aimed to 1) evaluate recurrent stroke risk among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury, and 2) determine if there is a treatment effect with anticoagulation in this population. Methods: We analyzed the multicenter, retrospective Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort of patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke. The exposure was LV injury defined by 1) LV ejection fraction (EF) 20-40% and/or 2) LV wall motion abnormality (hypokinesis or akinesis). The primary composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Cox proportional hazard models were built and sequentially adjusted for 1) age and sex (Model 1), and 2) age, sex, race, ethnicity, anti-thrombotic use, and vascular risk factors (Model 2). We then assessed if there was heterogeneity in treatment effect by LV injury status with an interaction term of LV injury and oral anticoagulation use in Model 2. Results: Of 2,641 patients in CASPR, the analytic cohort included 2,191 patients with complete exposure and outcome data (median age 65 years, 49.8% female, median follow-up 1.55 years). There were 113 (5.2%) patients with LV injury (median LVEF 30%, interquartile range 25-34%). There were 559 incident events (321 recurrent strokes [288 ischemic], 71 major hemorrhages, 250 deaths). Among patients with LV injury, 15.9% were prescribed an anticoagulant within 7 days of index stroke (vs 9.6% without LV injury, p=0.03). The unadjusted risk of the primary outcome was non-significantly higher among patients with LV injury vs without (HR 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-2.00), but became significant in Model 1 (HR 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.85) and in Model 2 (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.11-1.64). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation vs antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.94). In patients without LV injury, anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of the composite outcome (HR 4.35, 95% CI, 1.69-11.16, p[interaction]=0.002). Conclusion: In this observational study, there was an increased risk of the primary outcome which included recurrent stroke among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury. Anticoagulation use in LV injury is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the primary outcome. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Malignancy represents an important subgroup of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). We aim to compare infarct features, potential embolic sources, and long-term outcomes in ESUS patients with and without malignancy. Methods: In this pre-specified secondary analysis of the Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence (CASPR) retrospective cohort study, active cancers were identified by site investigators and adjudicated as malignant if they were non-squamous or non-basal cell skin cancers. We compared the prevalence of various potential embolic sources (e.g., patent foramen ovale, left ventricular dysfunction, post-stroke atrial fibrillation) among patients with and without malignancy. The risk of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death was evaluated using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, accounting for age, sex, vascular risk factors, competing potential embolic sources, and initial treatment with anticoagulation versus non-anticoagulant (e.g., antiplatelet) regimen. Results: Of the 2201 patients followed over a median of 564 days, 236 (10.7%) were diagnosed with cancer at the time of stroke. Patients with malignancy were older, more frequently hypertensive and did not differ with regards to prevalence of specific infarct patterns or potential cardiac embolic sources. No difference was observed in the composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.71-1.46). Age (adjusted HR per year 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), baseline stroke severity (adjusted HR 1.03 per NIHSS point, 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), prior stroke (adjusted HR 1.68, 95% CI, 1.38-2.05), and multi-territorial infarct pattern (adjusted HR 1.67, 95% CI, 1.33-2.08) were significantly associated with this composite outcome, but anticoagulation was not. There was a nominally lower rate of major bleeding with malignancy (adjusted HR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.19-1.04), a significantly higher rate of death (adjusted HR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.09-2.30), but no significant difference in recurrent ischemic stroke (p=0.31). Conclusions: Patients with malignancy and ESUS had higher mortality but did not differ in recurrent stroke risk or major bleeding when compared to patients without malignancy. Anticoagulation was not independently associated with better outcomes. Further analysis of infarct topology and risk factors may better identify patients for whom anticoagulation may benefit.

Abstract Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has revolutionized the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO), but its efficacy and safety in medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) remain less explored. This multicenter, retrospective study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes of vessel perforations (confirmed by extravasation during an angiographic series) during MT for AIS caused by MeVO. Methods: Data were collected from 37 academic centers across North America, Asia, and Europe between September 2017 and July 2021. A total of 1373 AIS patients with MeVO underwent MT. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: The incidence of vessel perforation was 4.8% (66/1373). Notably, our analysis indicates variations in perforation rates across different arterial segments: 8.9% in M3 segments, 4.3% in M2 segments, and 8.3% in A2 segments (p = 0.612). Patients with perforation had significantly worse outcomes, with lower rates of favorable angiographic outcomes (TICI 2c-3: 23% vs 58.9%, p < 0.001; TICI 2b-3: 56.5% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001). Functional outcomes were also worse in the perforation group (mRS 0–1 at 3 months: 22.7% vs 36.6%, p = 0.031; mRS 0–2 at 3 months: 28.8% vs 53.9%, p < 0.001). Mortality was higher in the perforation group (30.3% vs 16.8%, p = 0.008). Conclusion: This study reveals that while the occurrence of vessel perforation in MT for AIS due to MeVO is relatively rare, it is associated with poor functional outcomes and higher mortality. The findings highlight the need for increased caution and specialized training in performing MT for MeVO. Further prospective research is required for risk mitigation strategies.

Abstract Introduction: First pass effect (FPE), achievement of complete recanalization (mTICI 2c/3) with a single pass, is a significant predictor of favorable outcomes for endovascular treatment (EVT) in large vessel occlusion stroke (LVO). However, data concerning the impact on functional outcomes and predictors of FPE in medium vessel occlusions (MeVO) are scarce. Patients and Methods: We conducted an international retrospective study on MeVO cases. Multivariable logistic modeling was used to establish independent predictors of FPE. Clinical and safety outcomes were compared between the two study groups (FPE vs non-FPE) using logistic regression models. Good outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale 0–2 at 3 months. Results: Eight hundred thirty-six patients with a final mTICI ⩾ 2b were included in this analysis. FPE was observed in 302 patients (36.1%). In multivariable analysis, hypertension (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.10–2.20) and lower baseline NIHSS score (aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93–0.97) were independently associated with an FPE. Good outcomes were more common in the FPE versus non-FPE group (72.8% vs 52.8%), and FPE was independently associated with favorable outcome (aOR 2.20, 95% CI 1.59–3.05). 90-day mortality and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were significantly lower in the FPE group, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.25–0.72) and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39–0.77), respectively. Conclusion: Over 2/3 of patients with MeVOs and FPE in our cohort had a favorable outcome at 90 days. FPE is independently associated with favorable outcomes, it may reduce the risk of any intracranial hemorrhage, and 3-month mortality.

Background For acute proximal intracranial artery occlusions, contact aspiration may be more effective than stent‐retriever for first‐line reperfusion therapy. Due to the lack of data regarding medium vessel occlusion thrombectomy, we evaluated outcomes according to first‐line technique in a large, multicenter registry. Methods Imaging, procedural, and clinical outcomes of patients with acute proximal medium vessel occlusions (M2, A1, or P1) or distal medium vessel occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or further) treated at 37 sites in 10 countries were analyzed according to first‐line endovascular technique (stent‐retriever versus aspiration). Multivariable logistic regression and propensity‐score matching were used to estimate the odds of the primary outcome, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b–3 (“successful recanalization”), as well as secondary outcomes (first‐pass effect, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2c‐3, intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90‐day modified Rankin scale, 90‐day mortality) between treatment groups. Results Of the 440 included patients (44.5% stent‐retriever versus 55.5% aspiration), those treated with stent‐retriever had lower baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scale scores (median 8 versus 9; P <0.01), higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (median 13 versus 11; P =0.02), and nonsignificantly fewer medium‐distal occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or other: 17.4% versus 23.8%; P =0.10). Use of a stent‐retriever was associated with 15% lower odds of successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; [95% CI 0.74–0.98]; P =0.02), but this was not significant after multivariable adjustment in the total cohort (adjusted OR, 0.88; [95% CI 0.72–1.09]; P =0.24), or in the propensity‐score matched cohort (n=105 in each group) (adjusted OR, 0.94; [95% CI 0.75–1.18]; P =0.60). There was no significant association between technique and secondary outcomes in the propensity‐score matched adjusted models. Conclusion In this large, diverse, multinational medium vessel occlusion cohort, we found no significant difference in imaging or clinical outcomes with aspiration versus stent‐retriever thrombectomy.