Browsing by Author "Gralla, Jan (8409278100)"

Purpose The Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration was a concerted effort initiated in 2010 with the purpose to address relevant research questions about the effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). The collaboration also aims to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) and hence the name of the collaboration was changed from TRISP to EVA-TRISP. The methodology of the former TRISP registry for patients treated with IVT has already been published. This paper focuses on describing the EVT part of the registry. Participants All centres committed to collecting predefined variables on consecutive patients prospectively. We aim for accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt local databases to investigate novel research questions. Herein, we introduce the methodology of a recently constructed academic investigator-initiated open collaboration EVT registry built as an extension of an existing IVT registry in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). Findings to date Currently, the EVA-TRISP network includes 20 stroke centres with considerable expertise in EVT and maintenance of high-quality hospital-based registries. Following several successful randomised controlled trials (RCTs), many important clinical questions remain unanswered in the (EVT) field and some of them will unlikely be investigated in future RCTs. Prospective registries with high-quality data on EVT-treated patients may help answering some of these unanswered issues, especially on safety and efficacy of EVT in specific patient subgroups. Future plans This collaborative effort aims at addressing clinically important questions on safety and efficacy of EVT in conditions not covered by RCTs. The TRISP registry generated substantial novel data supporting stroke physicians in their daily decision making considering IVT candidate patients. While providing observational data on EVT in daily clinical practice, our future findings may likewise be hypothesis generating for future research as well as for quality improvement (on EVT). The collaboration welcomes participation of further centres willing to fulfill the commitment and the outlined requirements. © 2021 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

Introduction: After positive findings in clinical trials the time window for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for patients with an acute ischemic stroke has been expanded up to 24 h from symptom onset or last seen well (LSW). We aimed to compare EVT patients’ characteristics and outcomes in the early versus extended time window and to compare outcomes with the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trial results. Patients and methods: Consecutive EVT patients from 16 mostly European comprehensive stroke centers from the EVA-TRISP cohort were included. We compared rates of 90-day good functional outcomes (Modified Rankin Scale 0–2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and 90-day mortality between patients treated in the early (<6 h after onset or LSW) versus extended (6–24 h after onset or LSW) time windows. Results: We included 9313 patients, of which 6876 were treated in the early and 2437 in the extended time window. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at presentation was lower in patients treated in the extended time window (median 13 [IQR 7–18] vs 15 [IQR 9–19], p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with good functional outcome was slightly lower in the extended time window (37.4% vs 42.2%, p < 0.001). However, rates of successful recanalization, sICH, and mortality were similar. Good functional outcome rates after EVT were slightly lower for patients in the extended window in the EVA-TRISP cohort as compared to DAWN and DEFUSE 3. Discussion and conclusion: According to this large multicenter cohort study reflecting daily clinical practice, EVT use in the extended time window appears safe and effective. © European Stroke Organisation 2024.

Background and Purpose This study aimed to investigate the effect of endovascular treatment (EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis [IVT]) versus IVT alone on outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO) attributable to cervical artery dissection (CeAD). Methods This multinational cohort study was conducted based on prospectively collected data from the EVA-TRISP (EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients) collaboration. Consecutive patients (2015–2019) with AIS-LVO attributable to CeAD treated with EVT and/or IVT were included. Primary outcome measures were (1) favorable 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) and (2) complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale 2b/3). Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models were calculated (unadjusted, adjusted). Secondary analyses were performed in the patients with LVO in the anterior circulation (LVOant) including propensity score matching. Results Among 290 patients, 222 (76.6%) had EVT and 68 (23.4%) IVT alone. EVT-treated patients had more severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, median [interquartile range]: 14 [10–19] vs. 4 [2–7], P<0.001). The frequency of favorable 3-month outcome did not differ significantly between both groups (EVT: 64.0% vs. IVT: 86.8%; ORadjusted 0.56 [0.24–1.32]). EVT was associated with higher rates of recanalization (80.5% vs. 40.7%; ORadjusted 8.85 [4.28–18.29]) compared to IVT. All secondary analyses showed higher recanalization rates in the EVT-group, which however never translated into better functional outcome rates compared to the IVT-group. Conclusion We observed no signal of superiority of EVT over IVT regarding functional outcome in CeAD-patients with AIS and LVO despite higher rates of complete recanalization with EVT. Whether pathophysiological CeAD-characteristics or their younger age might explain this observation deserves further research. © 2023 Korean Stroke Society.