Clara Monteiro Antunes Barreira

Flow Reversal Versus Filter Protection A Pilot Carotid Artery Stenting Randomized Trial

Background—Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative treatment for patients presenting symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The improvement in clinical outcomes with CAS has been associated with the development of embolic protection devices. The trial aim is to compare flow reversal versus filter protection during CAS through femoral access. Methods and Results—Patients were randomly enrolled in CAS using flow reversal or filter protection. The primary end points were the incidence, number, and size of new ischemic brain lesions after CAS. The secondary end points included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, transient ischemic attack, and definitive ischemic brain lesions on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance image at a 3-month follow-up. Ischemic brain lesions were assessed by a 3T magnetic resonance image. Neurological outcomes were evaluated by means of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Forty consecutive patients were randomly assigned. Compared with flow reversal (n=21), filter protection (n=19) resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence (15.8% versus 47.6%, P=0.03), number (0.73 versus 2.6, P=0.05), and size (0.81 versus 2.23 mm, P=0.05) of new ischemic brain lesions. Two patients, 1 from each group, presented transient ischemic attack at 3-month follow-up. There were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in the hospital or at 3-month follow-up. Conclusions—In this small sample size trial, filter protection was more effective than flow reversal in reducing ischemic brain lesions during CAS through femoral approach. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://portal2.saude.gov.br/sisnep/. Unique identifier: 0538.0.004.000-10.

Safety of IV thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke related to Chagas disease

Objective: To determine the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SIH) and in-hospital mortality among patients with acute ischemic stroke related to Chagas disease (CD) treated with IV tissue plasminogen activator (TPA). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive stroke patients treated with IV TPA and routinely tested for CD were retrospectively selected from a single-center, hospital-based, prospective registry of acute stroke patients from 2001 to 2012. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from the registry as well as in-hospital mortality. CT scans were blindly reviewed to assess the occurrence of hemorrhagic transformation. Among acute stroke patients who received IV TPA, we compared those with and without a positive serology for CD. Results: Among 240 patients treated with IV TPA, 174 had serologic testing for CD available. Of those, 24 patients (13.8%) had positive serology for CD. Patients with CD more frequently had heart failure (45.8% vs 14.7%; p < 0.01) and higher admission NIH Stroke Scale scores (19 [15–21] vs 13 [8–19]; p < 0.01) than patients with negative serology. The rates of SIH (4.2% vs 5.3%; odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.09–6.46; p = 0.99) and in-hospital death (16.7% vs 11.3%; odds ratio: 1.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.48–5.12; p = 0.50) were not higher among patients with CD. Conclusion: In the largest published series of patients with CD-related stroke treated with IV TPA, we have observed that IV thrombolysis was safely performed and showed no increase of SIH. The diagnosis of CD should not preclude IV thrombolysis in these patients.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion in Brazil: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular therapy (EVT) were proven safe and effective for anterior circulation proximal occlusions. However, the most appropriate recanalization strategy in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) is still controversial. This study aimed to assess outcomes of patients with BAO at an academic stroke center in Brazil. METHODS This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with BAO from a prospective stroke registry at Ribeirão Preto Medical School. Primary outcomes were mortality and favorable outcome (modified Rankin score [mRS] ≤3) at 90 days. After univariate analyses, multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify independent predictors of primary outcomes. RESULTS Between August 2004 and December 2015, 63 (65% male) patients with BAO and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 31 (interquartile range: 19-36) were identified. Twenty-nine (46%) patients received no acute recanalization therapy, 15 (24%) received IVT, and 19 (30%) received EVT (68% treated with stent retrievers). Twenty-four (83%) patients treated conservatively died, and only 2 (7%) achieved an mRS less than or equal to 3. Among patients treated with acute recanalization therapies, 15 (44%) died, and 9 (26.5%) had a favorable outcome. On multivariate analysis, baseline systolic blood pressure (odds ratio [OR] = .97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .95-0.99; P = .023), posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (OR = .62; 95% CI: .41-0.94; P = .026), and successful recanalization (OR = .18; 95% CI: .04-0.71; P = .015) were independent predictors of lower mortality. Baseline NIHSS (OR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.08-1.82; P = .012), prior use of statins (OR = .003; 95% CI: .001-0.28; P = .012), and successful recanalization (OR = .05; 95% CI: .001-0.27; P = .009) were independent predictors of favorable outcome. There was no significant difference between the IVT group and the EVT group on primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS BAO is associated with high morbidity and mortality in Brazil. Access to acute recanalization therapies may decrease mortality in those patients.

Outcomes of carotid artery stenting at a high-volume Brazilian interventional neuroradiology center

OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting is an emerging revascularization alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, guidelines have recommended carotid artery stenting only if the rate of periprocedural stroke or death is < 6% among symptomatic patients and < 3% among asymptomatic patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients who had undergone carotid artery stenting as a first-intention treatment. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting by our interventional neuroradiology team was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days. The secondary endpoints included ipsilateral ischemic stroke, ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage, ipsilateral transient ischemic attack and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the 1- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: A total of 200 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral stroke (2.4% vs. 2.7%, p = 1.00), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.8% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (4.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.71). The secondary endpoints obtained in the symptomatic vs. asymptomatic groups were ipsilateral ischemic stroke (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage (0.0% vs. 0.0%), ipsilateral TIA (0.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (11.2% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, carotid artery stenting was similarly safe and effective when performed as a first-intention treatment in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The study results comply with the safety requirements from current recommendations to perform carotid artery stenting as an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy.

Letter by de Castro-Afonso et al Regarding Article, “Operator’s Experience Is the Most Efficient Embolic Protection Device for Carotid Artery Stenting”

We appreciated the editorial by Stabile and Esposito,1 where the authors made an extensive discussion on conflicting results between our trial and others previously published.2–4 The authors’ conjectures on these studies suggest that operator experience with carotid artery stenting procedures seems to be the best brain embolic protective factor. We agree with the authors in most of their comments and here address additional points with the aim of expanding available knowledge of the subject in focus. Stabile and Esposito considered that a lower experience of operator with flow-reversal device (12 cases versus >400 cases with filters) was the major factor associated with the poorer results obtained by the flow-reversal group of our trial.2 In fact, operator experience imbalances are usually …