Interhospital Transfer Before Thrombectomy Is Associated With Delayed Treatment and Worse Outcome in the STRATIS Registry (Systematic Evaluation of Patients Treated With Neurothrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke)
Background: Endovascular treatment with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is beneficial for patients with acute stroke suffering a large-vessel occlusion, although treatment efficacy is highly time-dependent. We hypothesized that interhospital transfer to endovascular-capable centers would result in treatment delays and worse clinical outcomes compared with direct presentation. Methods: STRATIS (Systematic Evaluation of Patients Treated With Neurothrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke) was a prospective, multicenter, observational, single-arm study of real-world MT for acute stroke because of anterior-circulation large-vessel occlusion performed at 55 sites over 2 years, including 1000 patients with severe stroke and treated within 8 hours. Patients underwent MT with or without intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and were admitted to endovascular-capable centers via either interhospital transfer or direct presentation. The primary clinical outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed (1) real-world time metrics of stroke care delivery, (2) outcome differences between direct and transfer patients undergoing MT, and (3) the potential impact of local hospital bypass. Results: A total of 984 patients were analyzed. Median onset-to-revascularization time was 202.0 minutes for direct versus 311.5 minutes for transfer patients ( P <0.001). Clinical outcomes were better in the direct group, with 60.0% (299/498) achieving functional independence compared with 52.2% (213/408) in the transfer group (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.79; P =0.02). Likewise, excellent outcome (modified Rankin Score 0–1) was achieved in 47.4% (236/498) of direct patients versus 38.0% (155/408) of transfer patients (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–1.92; P =0.005). Mortality did not differ between the 2 groups (15.1% for direct, 13.7% for transfer; P =0.55). Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator did not impact outcomes. Hypothetical bypass modeling for all transferred patients suggested that intravenous tissue plasminogen activator would be delayed by 12 minutes, but MT would be performed 91 minutes sooner if patients were routed directly to endovascular-capable centers. If bypass is limited to a 20-mile radius from onset, then intravenous tissue plasminogen activator would be delayed by 7 minutes and MT performed 94 minutes earlier. Conclusions: In this large, real-world study, interhospital transfer was associated with significant treatment delays and lower chance of good outcome. Strategies to facilitate more rapid identification of large-vessel occlusion and direct routing to endovascular-capable centers for patients with severe stroke may improve outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02239640.
Endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke: the end or just the beginning?
Various endovascular intraarterial approaches are available for treating patients with acute ischemic stroke who present with severe neurological deficits. Three recent randomized trials—Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III, Mechanical Retrieval and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE), and Synthesis Expansion: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Intra-Arterial Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SYNTHESIS Expansion)—evaluated the efficacy of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke and, after failing to demonstrate any significant clinical benefit of endovascular therapies, raised concerns and questions in the medical community regarding the future of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. In this paper, the authors review the evolution of endovascular treatment strategies for the treatment of acute stroke and provide their interpretation of findings and potential limitations of the three recently published randomized trials. The authors discuss the advantage of stent-retriever technology over earlier endovascular approaches and review the current status and future directions of endovascular acute stroke studies based on lessons learned from previous trials.