User login
Upping CO2 does not benefit OHCA patients: TAME
The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO2 levels were not associated with worse outcomes.
“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO2 levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.
“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.
“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO2 levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”
The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO2 levels increases cerebral blood flow.
Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.
In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO2 induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.
The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.
For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO2, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO2, 35-45 mm Hg).
The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).
By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.
Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.
In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.
The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.
In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.
The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.
“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.
“Raising CO2 levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”
He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.
“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO2, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.
He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.
The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO2 levels were not associated with worse outcomes.
“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO2 levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.
“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.
“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO2 levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”
The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO2 levels increases cerebral blood flow.
Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.
In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO2 induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.
The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.
For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO2, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO2, 35-45 mm Hg).
The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).
By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.
Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.
In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.
The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.
In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.
The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.
“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.
“Raising CO2 levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”
He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.
“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO2, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.
He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.
The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO2 levels were not associated with worse outcomes.
“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO2 levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.
“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.
“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO2 levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”
The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO2 levels increases cerebral blood flow.
Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.
In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO2 induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.
The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.
For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO2, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO2, 35-45 mm Hg).
The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).
By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.
Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.
In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.
The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.
In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.
The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.
“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.
“Raising CO2 levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”
He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.
“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO2, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.
He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.
The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CCR23
Support for minimally invasive mitral valve repair: Mini Mitral published
The trial, which was first presented earlier this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting, showed that minimally invasive mitral valve repair does not improve physical function at 12 weeks, compared with sternotomy, but outcomes at 1 year show minimally invasive repair is as safe and effective as sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation.
The full results are now published online in JAMA.
The authors, led by Enoch Akowuah, MD, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, explain that mitral valve repair surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation and is routinely performed via full sternotomy, enabling easy access to the heart, flexibility in myocardial protection strategies, and multiple ways of accessing the mitral valve and easing de-airing to prevent air emboli, which cause cerebrovascular accidents.
However, the invasiveness of sternotomy is associated with delayed return to presurgery physical function levels and an increase in postoperative complications.
An alternative new video-guided minimally invasive approach involving a 4- to 7-cm lateral thoracotomy, completely avoiding sternotomy, has been developed, with the hope that it should speed physical recovery function after surgery and reduce postoperative complications and costs by reducing hospital stay.
Dr. Akowuah et al. note that uptake of minithoracotomy is variable, with low rates in the United States and the United Kingdom but high rates in Germany. They say that this variation is attributable to the absence of high-quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating equivalent or superior benefits, compared with sternotomy, and there are also concerns that the increased technical complexity of minithoracotomy may impair the ability to repair complex valve lesions or increase perioperative complications, particularly vascular injuries and stroke.
The U.K. Mini Mitral trial was therefore conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of minithoracotomy versus sternotomy mitral valve repair.
For the trial, 330 patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation were randomized to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon.
The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the surgery.
This failed to show superiority of minithoracotomy, with a mean difference of 0.68 (95% confidence interval, −1.89 to 3.26) between the two groups.
Analysis of secondary outcomes demonstrated that time spent undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity was higher among participants receiving minithoracotomy at 6 weeks, although the treatment effect was small at an average of 9 minutes and was not different at 12 weeks.
Postoperative length of hospital stay was reduced after minithoracotomy by 1 day, with a median of 5 days, compared with 6 days after sternotomy.
Although repair techniques were at the discretion of the surgeons and differed between the two procedures, high rates of valve repair and low rates of recurrent mitral regurgitation were observed in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer with minithoracotomy, but postoperative complications and adverse events were similar.
There was no difference between the two groups with respect to the prespecified safety outcome of death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year, which occurred in 5.4% of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% of those undergoing sternotomy.
“These findings can inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines,” the authors conclude.
Approach ‘may appeal to patients’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the study in JAMA, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minnesota, says the results should be integrated into patient management.
“Mini-thoracotomy mitral repair carried low risk and was highly effective compared with sternotomy. It can thus be applied successfully by surgeons who achieve the necessary expertise,” he notes.
“Mini-thoracotomy may appeal to patients because the procedure is less disfiguring than sternotomy. The early (6-week) benefit, albeit small and transient, is important to patients,” he adds.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reports no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Enriquez-Sarano reports receiving consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Artivion, ChemImage, HighLife, and Corcym.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial, which was first presented earlier this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting, showed that minimally invasive mitral valve repair does not improve physical function at 12 weeks, compared with sternotomy, but outcomes at 1 year show minimally invasive repair is as safe and effective as sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation.
The full results are now published online in JAMA.
The authors, led by Enoch Akowuah, MD, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, explain that mitral valve repair surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation and is routinely performed via full sternotomy, enabling easy access to the heart, flexibility in myocardial protection strategies, and multiple ways of accessing the mitral valve and easing de-airing to prevent air emboli, which cause cerebrovascular accidents.
However, the invasiveness of sternotomy is associated with delayed return to presurgery physical function levels and an increase in postoperative complications.
An alternative new video-guided minimally invasive approach involving a 4- to 7-cm lateral thoracotomy, completely avoiding sternotomy, has been developed, with the hope that it should speed physical recovery function after surgery and reduce postoperative complications and costs by reducing hospital stay.
Dr. Akowuah et al. note that uptake of minithoracotomy is variable, with low rates in the United States and the United Kingdom but high rates in Germany. They say that this variation is attributable to the absence of high-quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating equivalent or superior benefits, compared with sternotomy, and there are also concerns that the increased technical complexity of minithoracotomy may impair the ability to repair complex valve lesions or increase perioperative complications, particularly vascular injuries and stroke.
The U.K. Mini Mitral trial was therefore conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of minithoracotomy versus sternotomy mitral valve repair.
For the trial, 330 patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation were randomized to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon.
The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the surgery.
This failed to show superiority of minithoracotomy, with a mean difference of 0.68 (95% confidence interval, −1.89 to 3.26) between the two groups.
Analysis of secondary outcomes demonstrated that time spent undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity was higher among participants receiving minithoracotomy at 6 weeks, although the treatment effect was small at an average of 9 minutes and was not different at 12 weeks.
Postoperative length of hospital stay was reduced after minithoracotomy by 1 day, with a median of 5 days, compared with 6 days after sternotomy.
Although repair techniques were at the discretion of the surgeons and differed between the two procedures, high rates of valve repair and low rates of recurrent mitral regurgitation were observed in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer with minithoracotomy, but postoperative complications and adverse events were similar.
There was no difference between the two groups with respect to the prespecified safety outcome of death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year, which occurred in 5.4% of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% of those undergoing sternotomy.
“These findings can inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines,” the authors conclude.
Approach ‘may appeal to patients’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the study in JAMA, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minnesota, says the results should be integrated into patient management.
“Mini-thoracotomy mitral repair carried low risk and was highly effective compared with sternotomy. It can thus be applied successfully by surgeons who achieve the necessary expertise,” he notes.
“Mini-thoracotomy may appeal to patients because the procedure is less disfiguring than sternotomy. The early (6-week) benefit, albeit small and transient, is important to patients,” he adds.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reports no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Enriquez-Sarano reports receiving consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Artivion, ChemImage, HighLife, and Corcym.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial, which was first presented earlier this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting, showed that minimally invasive mitral valve repair does not improve physical function at 12 weeks, compared with sternotomy, but outcomes at 1 year show minimally invasive repair is as safe and effective as sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation.
The full results are now published online in JAMA.
The authors, led by Enoch Akowuah, MD, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, explain that mitral valve repair surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation and is routinely performed via full sternotomy, enabling easy access to the heart, flexibility in myocardial protection strategies, and multiple ways of accessing the mitral valve and easing de-airing to prevent air emboli, which cause cerebrovascular accidents.
However, the invasiveness of sternotomy is associated with delayed return to presurgery physical function levels and an increase in postoperative complications.
An alternative new video-guided minimally invasive approach involving a 4- to 7-cm lateral thoracotomy, completely avoiding sternotomy, has been developed, with the hope that it should speed physical recovery function after surgery and reduce postoperative complications and costs by reducing hospital stay.
Dr. Akowuah et al. note that uptake of minithoracotomy is variable, with low rates in the United States and the United Kingdom but high rates in Germany. They say that this variation is attributable to the absence of high-quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating equivalent or superior benefits, compared with sternotomy, and there are also concerns that the increased technical complexity of minithoracotomy may impair the ability to repair complex valve lesions or increase perioperative complications, particularly vascular injuries and stroke.
The U.K. Mini Mitral trial was therefore conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of minithoracotomy versus sternotomy mitral valve repair.
For the trial, 330 patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation were randomized to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon.
The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the surgery.
This failed to show superiority of minithoracotomy, with a mean difference of 0.68 (95% confidence interval, −1.89 to 3.26) between the two groups.
Analysis of secondary outcomes demonstrated that time spent undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity was higher among participants receiving minithoracotomy at 6 weeks, although the treatment effect was small at an average of 9 minutes and was not different at 12 weeks.
Postoperative length of hospital stay was reduced after minithoracotomy by 1 day, with a median of 5 days, compared with 6 days after sternotomy.
Although repair techniques were at the discretion of the surgeons and differed between the two procedures, high rates of valve repair and low rates of recurrent mitral regurgitation were observed in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer with minithoracotomy, but postoperative complications and adverse events were similar.
There was no difference between the two groups with respect to the prespecified safety outcome of death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year, which occurred in 5.4% of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% of those undergoing sternotomy.
“These findings can inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines,” the authors conclude.
Approach ‘may appeal to patients’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the study in JAMA, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minnesota, says the results should be integrated into patient management.
“Mini-thoracotomy mitral repair carried low risk and was highly effective compared with sternotomy. It can thus be applied successfully by surgeons who achieve the necessary expertise,” he notes.
“Mini-thoracotomy may appeal to patients because the procedure is less disfiguring than sternotomy. The early (6-week) benefit, albeit small and transient, is important to patients,” he adds.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reports no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Enriquez-Sarano reports receiving consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Artivion, ChemImage, HighLife, and Corcym.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antibody linked to spontaneous reversal of ATTR-CM
Cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (also called ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy or ATTR-CM) is a progressive disease and a cause of heart failure resulting from accumulation of the protein transthyretin, which misfolds and forms amyloid deposits on the walls of the heart, causing both systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
The condition is progressive and normally fatal within a few years of diagnosis. Treatment options are limited and aimed at slowing progression; nothing has been shown to reverse the course of the disease.
However, an international team of researchers is now reporting the discovery of three patients with ATTR-CM–associated heart failure in whom the condition resolved spontaneously, with reversion to near normal cardiac structure and function. On further investigation, it was found that these three patients had developed circulating polyclonal IgG antibodies to human ATTR amyloid.
They are hopeful that a monoclonal form of these antibodies could be developed and may represent a novel treatment, or even a cure, for the condition.
The researchers report their findings in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We are very optimistic about this discovery of these antibodies. They could become the first treatment to clear the amyloid that causes this horribly progressive and fatal condition,” senior author Julian Gillmore, MD, head of the University College London Centre for Amyloidosis, based at the Royal Free Hospital, said in an interview.
“Obviously, there is a lot of work to do before we can say this is the case, but it is very exciting,” he added.
Dr. Gillmore explained how the antibodies were discovered. “This disease has a universally progressive course, but we had one patient who on a repeat appointment said he felt better and on detailed cardiac MRI imaging, we found that the amyloid in his heart had reduced. That is totally unheard of,” he said.
“We then looked back at our cohort of 1,663 patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy, and we discovered two others who had also improved both on imaging and clinically,” Dr. Gillmore said.
Each of these three patients reported a reduction in symptoms, although they had not received any new or potentially disease-modifying treatments. None of the patients had had recent vaccinations, notable infections, or any clinical suggestion of myocarditis.
Clinical recovery was corroborated by substantial improvement or normalization of findings on echocardiography, serum biomarker levels, and results of cardiopulmonary exercise tests and scintigraphy.
Serial cardiac MRI scans confirmed near-complete regression of myocardial extracellular volume, coupled with remodeling to near-normal cardiac structure and function without scarring.
The researchers wondered whether the changes in these patients may have been brought about by an antibody response. On further investigation, they found antibodies in the three patients that bound specifically to ATTR amyloid deposits in a transgenic mouse model of the condition, and to synthetic ATTR amyloid. No such antibodies were present in the other 350 patients in the cohort with a typical clinical course.
“The cause and clinical significance of the anti-ATTR amyloid antibodies are intriguing and presently unclear. However, the clinical recovery of these patients establishes the unanticipated potential for reversibility of ATTR-CM and raises expectations for its treatment,” the researchers conclude.
Dr. Gillmore said they didn’t know why these three patients had these antibodies, while all the other patients did not. “There must be something different about these patients. We don’t know what that is at present, but we are looking hard.”
The researchers are hoping that after this publication, other centers caring for patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy will look in their cohorts and see if they can identify other cases where there has been improvement.
“It is very plausible that they do have such cases, but they will be rare, as we all think of this disease as universally progressive and fatal,” Dr. Gillmore noted.
“We haven’t absolutely proven that the antibodies have caused the clearance of amyloid in these patients, but we strongly suspect this to be the case,” Dr. Gillmore said. The researchers are planning to try to confirm this by isolating the antibodies and treating the transgenic mice.
Dr. Gillmore attributed the current discovery to the development of novel imaging cardiac MRI techniques. “This allowed us to monitor closely the amyloid burden in the heart. The observation that this had diminished in these three patients was the breakthrough that led us to look for antibodies.”
Another antibody product directed against ATTR cardiomyopathy is also in development by Neurimmune, a Swiss biopharmaceutical company. A phase 1 study of this agent was recently published, suggesting that it appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart.
Dr. Gillmore said the antibody they have detected is different from the Neurimmune product.
The research was supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship, a Medical Research Council Career Development Award, and a project grant from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Gillmore reports being a consultant or expert advisory board member for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, ATTRalus, Eidos Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (also called ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy or ATTR-CM) is a progressive disease and a cause of heart failure resulting from accumulation of the protein transthyretin, which misfolds and forms amyloid deposits on the walls of the heart, causing both systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
The condition is progressive and normally fatal within a few years of diagnosis. Treatment options are limited and aimed at slowing progression; nothing has been shown to reverse the course of the disease.
However, an international team of researchers is now reporting the discovery of three patients with ATTR-CM–associated heart failure in whom the condition resolved spontaneously, with reversion to near normal cardiac structure and function. On further investigation, it was found that these three patients had developed circulating polyclonal IgG antibodies to human ATTR amyloid.
They are hopeful that a monoclonal form of these antibodies could be developed and may represent a novel treatment, or even a cure, for the condition.
The researchers report their findings in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We are very optimistic about this discovery of these antibodies. They could become the first treatment to clear the amyloid that causes this horribly progressive and fatal condition,” senior author Julian Gillmore, MD, head of the University College London Centre for Amyloidosis, based at the Royal Free Hospital, said in an interview.
“Obviously, there is a lot of work to do before we can say this is the case, but it is very exciting,” he added.
Dr. Gillmore explained how the antibodies were discovered. “This disease has a universally progressive course, but we had one patient who on a repeat appointment said he felt better and on detailed cardiac MRI imaging, we found that the amyloid in his heart had reduced. That is totally unheard of,” he said.
“We then looked back at our cohort of 1,663 patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy, and we discovered two others who had also improved both on imaging and clinically,” Dr. Gillmore said.
Each of these three patients reported a reduction in symptoms, although they had not received any new or potentially disease-modifying treatments. None of the patients had had recent vaccinations, notable infections, or any clinical suggestion of myocarditis.
Clinical recovery was corroborated by substantial improvement or normalization of findings on echocardiography, serum biomarker levels, and results of cardiopulmonary exercise tests and scintigraphy.
Serial cardiac MRI scans confirmed near-complete regression of myocardial extracellular volume, coupled with remodeling to near-normal cardiac structure and function without scarring.
The researchers wondered whether the changes in these patients may have been brought about by an antibody response. On further investigation, they found antibodies in the three patients that bound specifically to ATTR amyloid deposits in a transgenic mouse model of the condition, and to synthetic ATTR amyloid. No such antibodies were present in the other 350 patients in the cohort with a typical clinical course.
“The cause and clinical significance of the anti-ATTR amyloid antibodies are intriguing and presently unclear. However, the clinical recovery of these patients establishes the unanticipated potential for reversibility of ATTR-CM and raises expectations for its treatment,” the researchers conclude.
Dr. Gillmore said they didn’t know why these three patients had these antibodies, while all the other patients did not. “There must be something different about these patients. We don’t know what that is at present, but we are looking hard.”
The researchers are hoping that after this publication, other centers caring for patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy will look in their cohorts and see if they can identify other cases where there has been improvement.
“It is very plausible that they do have such cases, but they will be rare, as we all think of this disease as universally progressive and fatal,” Dr. Gillmore noted.
“We haven’t absolutely proven that the antibodies have caused the clearance of amyloid in these patients, but we strongly suspect this to be the case,” Dr. Gillmore said. The researchers are planning to try to confirm this by isolating the antibodies and treating the transgenic mice.
Dr. Gillmore attributed the current discovery to the development of novel imaging cardiac MRI techniques. “This allowed us to monitor closely the amyloid burden in the heart. The observation that this had diminished in these three patients was the breakthrough that led us to look for antibodies.”
Another antibody product directed against ATTR cardiomyopathy is also in development by Neurimmune, a Swiss biopharmaceutical company. A phase 1 study of this agent was recently published, suggesting that it appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart.
Dr. Gillmore said the antibody they have detected is different from the Neurimmune product.
The research was supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship, a Medical Research Council Career Development Award, and a project grant from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Gillmore reports being a consultant or expert advisory board member for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, ATTRalus, Eidos Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (also called ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy or ATTR-CM) is a progressive disease and a cause of heart failure resulting from accumulation of the protein transthyretin, which misfolds and forms amyloid deposits on the walls of the heart, causing both systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
The condition is progressive and normally fatal within a few years of diagnosis. Treatment options are limited and aimed at slowing progression; nothing has been shown to reverse the course of the disease.
However, an international team of researchers is now reporting the discovery of three patients with ATTR-CM–associated heart failure in whom the condition resolved spontaneously, with reversion to near normal cardiac structure and function. On further investigation, it was found that these three patients had developed circulating polyclonal IgG antibodies to human ATTR amyloid.
They are hopeful that a monoclonal form of these antibodies could be developed and may represent a novel treatment, or even a cure, for the condition.
The researchers report their findings in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We are very optimistic about this discovery of these antibodies. They could become the first treatment to clear the amyloid that causes this horribly progressive and fatal condition,” senior author Julian Gillmore, MD, head of the University College London Centre for Amyloidosis, based at the Royal Free Hospital, said in an interview.
“Obviously, there is a lot of work to do before we can say this is the case, but it is very exciting,” he added.
Dr. Gillmore explained how the antibodies were discovered. “This disease has a universally progressive course, but we had one patient who on a repeat appointment said he felt better and on detailed cardiac MRI imaging, we found that the amyloid in his heart had reduced. That is totally unheard of,” he said.
“We then looked back at our cohort of 1,663 patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy, and we discovered two others who had also improved both on imaging and clinically,” Dr. Gillmore said.
Each of these three patients reported a reduction in symptoms, although they had not received any new or potentially disease-modifying treatments. None of the patients had had recent vaccinations, notable infections, or any clinical suggestion of myocarditis.
Clinical recovery was corroborated by substantial improvement or normalization of findings on echocardiography, serum biomarker levels, and results of cardiopulmonary exercise tests and scintigraphy.
Serial cardiac MRI scans confirmed near-complete regression of myocardial extracellular volume, coupled with remodeling to near-normal cardiac structure and function without scarring.
The researchers wondered whether the changes in these patients may have been brought about by an antibody response. On further investigation, they found antibodies in the three patients that bound specifically to ATTR amyloid deposits in a transgenic mouse model of the condition, and to synthetic ATTR amyloid. No such antibodies were present in the other 350 patients in the cohort with a typical clinical course.
“The cause and clinical significance of the anti-ATTR amyloid antibodies are intriguing and presently unclear. However, the clinical recovery of these patients establishes the unanticipated potential for reversibility of ATTR-CM and raises expectations for its treatment,” the researchers conclude.
Dr. Gillmore said they didn’t know why these three patients had these antibodies, while all the other patients did not. “There must be something different about these patients. We don’t know what that is at present, but we are looking hard.”
The researchers are hoping that after this publication, other centers caring for patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy will look in their cohorts and see if they can identify other cases where there has been improvement.
“It is very plausible that they do have such cases, but they will be rare, as we all think of this disease as universally progressive and fatal,” Dr. Gillmore noted.
“We haven’t absolutely proven that the antibodies have caused the clearance of amyloid in these patients, but we strongly suspect this to be the case,” Dr. Gillmore said. The researchers are planning to try to confirm this by isolating the antibodies and treating the transgenic mice.
Dr. Gillmore attributed the current discovery to the development of novel imaging cardiac MRI techniques. “This allowed us to monitor closely the amyloid burden in the heart. The observation that this had diminished in these three patients was the breakthrough that led us to look for antibodies.”
Another antibody product directed against ATTR cardiomyopathy is also in development by Neurimmune, a Swiss biopharmaceutical company. A phase 1 study of this agent was recently published, suggesting that it appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart.
Dr. Gillmore said the antibody they have detected is different from the Neurimmune product.
The research was supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship, a Medical Research Council Career Development Award, and a project grant from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Gillmore reports being a consultant or expert advisory board member for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, ATTRalus, Eidos Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
More support for thrombectomy in large-core strokes: TESLA, MAGNA
Although not quite meeting its primary endpoint,
And a new meta-analysis (MAGNA) of previous studies in a similar population has provided more detailed estimates of the treatment benefit of thrombectomy in these patients.
The TESLA trial, which included patients with large-core infarcts (ASPECTS score 2-5) within 24 hours of symptom onset, showed encouraging trends towards a benefit with thrombectomy for the primary outcome of 90-day utility-weighted scores on the modified Rankin scale (mRS), but this did not reach the prespecified Bayesian superiority threshold.
Several secondary efficacy endpoints also showed suggestions of benefits with thrombectomy.
“The interventional group had higher mean or average utility-weighted mRS scores than the control group which means that their functional recovery at 90 days was trending for better outcome and less disability,” lead TESLA investigator, Osama Zaidat, MD, neuroscience & stroke director at Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, said in an interview. “They also showed better neurological improvement and a higher chance of achieving a good outcome (mRS 0-3).”
These patients with large-core infarct strokes were not included in the initial trials of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late time window, up to 24 hours, as it was thought they would not benefit. However, three recent trials (RESCUE-Japan LIMIT; ANGEL ASPECT; and SELECT 2) have shown that patients with large core infarcts can still benefit from endovascular thrombectomy.
While these three previous trials used sophisticated imaging techniques (MRI or CT perfusion) to select patients, and restricted patients included to those with an ASPECTS score of 3-5, the TESLA study had a more pragmatic design, using just noncontrast CT scan evaluation without advanced imaging to select patients, and extending the inclusion criteria to patients with an ASPECTS score of 2.
“Noncontrast CT scans are available at all stroke centers so this study is more practical, highly generalizable, and more applicable globally,” Dr. Zaidat commented.
“However, our results suggest that when using noncontrast CT only to select patients, the gain or treatment effect of thrombectomy seems to be smaller than when using sophisticated advanced imaging to make the decision to go for thrombectomy or not as in the other trials,” he added.
The TESLA trial results were presented at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
The study included 300 stroke patients with anterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion (NIHSS of 6 or more) with a large‐core infarction (investigator read ASPECTS Score 2-5), selected on the basis of noncontrast CT scan, who were randomized to undergo intra-arterial thrombectomy or best medical management (control) up to 24 hours from last known well.
The trial had a Bayesian probabilities design, with a primary endpoint of the 90-day utility-weighted mRS (uw-mRS), a relatively new patient-centered outcome used in stroke trials, which includes a quality-of-life measurement. Utilities represent preferences for mRS health states and range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), so in contrast to the traditional mRS scores, a higher uw-mRS score is better.
The 90-day uw-MRS scores were 2.93 in the thrombectomy group vs. 2.27 in the control group.
The Bayesian probability of thrombectomy superiority was 0.957, which Dr. Zaidat said was “similar” to a P value of .043, but this was less than the prespecified superiority probability of > .975 to declare efficacy.
A separate analysis in a population of patients selected by core-lab read noncontrast CT scan, showed a Bayesian probability of benefit with thrombectomy of 0.98, “similar” to one-sided P value of .02.
In terms of secondary endpoints, there were also some encouraging trends, including a suggestion of benefit in the 90-day mRS ordinal shift (odds ratio 1.40; P = .06).
The number of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) was 14% in the thrombectomy groups vs. 9% in the control group (P = .09); and a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3) was achieved in 30% of thrombectomy patients vs. 20% of those in the control group (P = .03).
Major neurological improvement (NIHSS scale of 0-2 or improvement of 8 points or more) occurred in 26% of thrombectomy patients vs. 13% of controls (P = .0008).
Quality of life, measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey, also showed a trend towards improvement in the thrombectomy group with mean scores of 53 vs. 46 (P = .058).
In terms of safety, all-cause mortality was similar in the two groups (35% thrombectomy and 33% control) and symptomatic intracerebral hemmorhage (ICH) occurred in 3.97% of thrombectomy vs. 1.34% of control patients (relative risk, 2.96).
“Cost-effective analysis and additional subgroup studies will provide more insight about the training needs to read the CT scan and if there is any value to treat patients with an ASPECTS score of 2,” Dr. Zaidat concluded.
“Larger pooled analysis will also be very useful in understanding the threshold of brain volume with irreversible damage beyond which thrombectomy wouldn’t be helpful,” he added.
Meta-analysis of previous studies: MAGNA
Another presentation at the ESOC meeting reported an individual patient data meta-analysis (MAGNA) of the three previous trials suggesting benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large-core ischemic strokes of the anterior circulation up to 24 hours of last known well.
The RESCUE Japan Limit trial was conducted in Japan; the SELECT-2 trial in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; and the ANGEL ASPECT trial in China.
In total, the meta-analysis included 1,009 patients, half of whom received thrombectomy and half received medical management only.
Results showed that in the whole population in the three trials, the use of thrombectomy improved functional outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.78 (P < .001).
Functional independence (mRS 0-2) was also increased (23% vs. 9%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.62; P < .001); as was independent ambulation (mRS, 0-3; 41% vs. 24%; aRR, 1.76; P < .001).
But early neurological worsening was more frequent with thrombectomy (aRR 1.42, 1.09-1.84, P = .010).
No difference in mortality was identified between thrombectomy (27%) and medical management (28%) or in rates of symptomatic ICH (1.8% thrombectomy vs. 1.6% medical management).
“The results from the previously published large-core trials and from this pooled dataset provide unequivocal evidence on the efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large-core infarcts,” lead author of the MAGNA meta-analysis, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, affiliate of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, concluded.
“The benefit persists across the spectrum of age, clinical severity, and time, with clear benefit up to an estimated ischemic core volume of 150 mL,” he added. “We have great hopes that these results will lead to more patients being treated and achieving improved functional outcomes.”
On how the TESLA results fit in with the previous three trials, Dr. Sarraj pointed out to this news organization that the TESLA trial was conducted in the United States and enrolled patients based on ASPECTS 2-5 on noncontrast CT.
“The primary outcome for intention-to-treat analysis did not reach the prespecified threshold for efficacy, but the results were largely in the same direction as shown in SELECT2, ANGEL ASPECT, and RESCUE Japan Limit,” he said. “These findings further emphasize the efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core, at the same time reinforcing the need to provide results from pooled data from all large-core trials.”
He noted that results from two further trials of thrombectomy in large core strokes, TENSION and LASTE – both of which have now been stopped early because of the positive findings from the previous studies – are expected soon, and the MAGNA meta-analysis will be updated to include data from all six trials.
“This will increase the accuracy of the estimation of the treatment effect and will give even more power to look further into the details related to subgroups and selection imaging modalities,” Dr. Sarraj added.
The research team hopes that this joint effort will eventually set the pathway for selection algorithms and treatment boundaries in patients with large-vessel occlusion.
TESLA was an investigator-initiated study funded by unrestricted grants from Cerenovus, Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, and Genentech. Dr. Zaidat is a consultant for Stryker, Cerenovus, Penumbra, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although not quite meeting its primary endpoint,
And a new meta-analysis (MAGNA) of previous studies in a similar population has provided more detailed estimates of the treatment benefit of thrombectomy in these patients.
The TESLA trial, which included patients with large-core infarcts (ASPECTS score 2-5) within 24 hours of symptom onset, showed encouraging trends towards a benefit with thrombectomy for the primary outcome of 90-day utility-weighted scores on the modified Rankin scale (mRS), but this did not reach the prespecified Bayesian superiority threshold.
Several secondary efficacy endpoints also showed suggestions of benefits with thrombectomy.
“The interventional group had higher mean or average utility-weighted mRS scores than the control group which means that their functional recovery at 90 days was trending for better outcome and less disability,” lead TESLA investigator, Osama Zaidat, MD, neuroscience & stroke director at Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, said in an interview. “They also showed better neurological improvement and a higher chance of achieving a good outcome (mRS 0-3).”
These patients with large-core infarct strokes were not included in the initial trials of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late time window, up to 24 hours, as it was thought they would not benefit. However, three recent trials (RESCUE-Japan LIMIT; ANGEL ASPECT; and SELECT 2) have shown that patients with large core infarcts can still benefit from endovascular thrombectomy.
While these three previous trials used sophisticated imaging techniques (MRI or CT perfusion) to select patients, and restricted patients included to those with an ASPECTS score of 3-5, the TESLA study had a more pragmatic design, using just noncontrast CT scan evaluation without advanced imaging to select patients, and extending the inclusion criteria to patients with an ASPECTS score of 2.
“Noncontrast CT scans are available at all stroke centers so this study is more practical, highly generalizable, and more applicable globally,” Dr. Zaidat commented.
“However, our results suggest that when using noncontrast CT only to select patients, the gain or treatment effect of thrombectomy seems to be smaller than when using sophisticated advanced imaging to make the decision to go for thrombectomy or not as in the other trials,” he added.
The TESLA trial results were presented at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
The study included 300 stroke patients with anterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion (NIHSS of 6 or more) with a large‐core infarction (investigator read ASPECTS Score 2-5), selected on the basis of noncontrast CT scan, who were randomized to undergo intra-arterial thrombectomy or best medical management (control) up to 24 hours from last known well.
The trial had a Bayesian probabilities design, with a primary endpoint of the 90-day utility-weighted mRS (uw-mRS), a relatively new patient-centered outcome used in stroke trials, which includes a quality-of-life measurement. Utilities represent preferences for mRS health states and range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), so in contrast to the traditional mRS scores, a higher uw-mRS score is better.
The 90-day uw-MRS scores were 2.93 in the thrombectomy group vs. 2.27 in the control group.
The Bayesian probability of thrombectomy superiority was 0.957, which Dr. Zaidat said was “similar” to a P value of .043, but this was less than the prespecified superiority probability of > .975 to declare efficacy.
A separate analysis in a population of patients selected by core-lab read noncontrast CT scan, showed a Bayesian probability of benefit with thrombectomy of 0.98, “similar” to one-sided P value of .02.
In terms of secondary endpoints, there were also some encouraging trends, including a suggestion of benefit in the 90-day mRS ordinal shift (odds ratio 1.40; P = .06).
The number of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) was 14% in the thrombectomy groups vs. 9% in the control group (P = .09); and a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3) was achieved in 30% of thrombectomy patients vs. 20% of those in the control group (P = .03).
Major neurological improvement (NIHSS scale of 0-2 or improvement of 8 points or more) occurred in 26% of thrombectomy patients vs. 13% of controls (P = .0008).
Quality of life, measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey, also showed a trend towards improvement in the thrombectomy group with mean scores of 53 vs. 46 (P = .058).
In terms of safety, all-cause mortality was similar in the two groups (35% thrombectomy and 33% control) and symptomatic intracerebral hemmorhage (ICH) occurred in 3.97% of thrombectomy vs. 1.34% of control patients (relative risk, 2.96).
“Cost-effective analysis and additional subgroup studies will provide more insight about the training needs to read the CT scan and if there is any value to treat patients with an ASPECTS score of 2,” Dr. Zaidat concluded.
“Larger pooled analysis will also be very useful in understanding the threshold of brain volume with irreversible damage beyond which thrombectomy wouldn’t be helpful,” he added.
Meta-analysis of previous studies: MAGNA
Another presentation at the ESOC meeting reported an individual patient data meta-analysis (MAGNA) of the three previous trials suggesting benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large-core ischemic strokes of the anterior circulation up to 24 hours of last known well.
The RESCUE Japan Limit trial was conducted in Japan; the SELECT-2 trial in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; and the ANGEL ASPECT trial in China.
In total, the meta-analysis included 1,009 patients, half of whom received thrombectomy and half received medical management only.
Results showed that in the whole population in the three trials, the use of thrombectomy improved functional outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.78 (P < .001).
Functional independence (mRS 0-2) was also increased (23% vs. 9%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.62; P < .001); as was independent ambulation (mRS, 0-3; 41% vs. 24%; aRR, 1.76; P < .001).
But early neurological worsening was more frequent with thrombectomy (aRR 1.42, 1.09-1.84, P = .010).
No difference in mortality was identified between thrombectomy (27%) and medical management (28%) or in rates of symptomatic ICH (1.8% thrombectomy vs. 1.6% medical management).
“The results from the previously published large-core trials and from this pooled dataset provide unequivocal evidence on the efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large-core infarcts,” lead author of the MAGNA meta-analysis, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, affiliate of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, concluded.
“The benefit persists across the spectrum of age, clinical severity, and time, with clear benefit up to an estimated ischemic core volume of 150 mL,” he added. “We have great hopes that these results will lead to more patients being treated and achieving improved functional outcomes.”
On how the TESLA results fit in with the previous three trials, Dr. Sarraj pointed out to this news organization that the TESLA trial was conducted in the United States and enrolled patients based on ASPECTS 2-5 on noncontrast CT.
“The primary outcome for intention-to-treat analysis did not reach the prespecified threshold for efficacy, but the results were largely in the same direction as shown in SELECT2, ANGEL ASPECT, and RESCUE Japan Limit,” he said. “These findings further emphasize the efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core, at the same time reinforcing the need to provide results from pooled data from all large-core trials.”
He noted that results from two further trials of thrombectomy in large core strokes, TENSION and LASTE – both of which have now been stopped early because of the positive findings from the previous studies – are expected soon, and the MAGNA meta-analysis will be updated to include data from all six trials.
“This will increase the accuracy of the estimation of the treatment effect and will give even more power to look further into the details related to subgroups and selection imaging modalities,” Dr. Sarraj added.
The research team hopes that this joint effort will eventually set the pathway for selection algorithms and treatment boundaries in patients with large-vessel occlusion.
TESLA was an investigator-initiated study funded by unrestricted grants from Cerenovus, Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, and Genentech. Dr. Zaidat is a consultant for Stryker, Cerenovus, Penumbra, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although not quite meeting its primary endpoint,
And a new meta-analysis (MAGNA) of previous studies in a similar population has provided more detailed estimates of the treatment benefit of thrombectomy in these patients.
The TESLA trial, which included patients with large-core infarcts (ASPECTS score 2-5) within 24 hours of symptom onset, showed encouraging trends towards a benefit with thrombectomy for the primary outcome of 90-day utility-weighted scores on the modified Rankin scale (mRS), but this did not reach the prespecified Bayesian superiority threshold.
Several secondary efficacy endpoints also showed suggestions of benefits with thrombectomy.
“The interventional group had higher mean or average utility-weighted mRS scores than the control group which means that their functional recovery at 90 days was trending for better outcome and less disability,” lead TESLA investigator, Osama Zaidat, MD, neuroscience & stroke director at Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, said in an interview. “They also showed better neurological improvement and a higher chance of achieving a good outcome (mRS 0-3).”
These patients with large-core infarct strokes were not included in the initial trials of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late time window, up to 24 hours, as it was thought they would not benefit. However, three recent trials (RESCUE-Japan LIMIT; ANGEL ASPECT; and SELECT 2) have shown that patients with large core infarcts can still benefit from endovascular thrombectomy.
While these three previous trials used sophisticated imaging techniques (MRI or CT perfusion) to select patients, and restricted patients included to those with an ASPECTS score of 3-5, the TESLA study had a more pragmatic design, using just noncontrast CT scan evaluation without advanced imaging to select patients, and extending the inclusion criteria to patients with an ASPECTS score of 2.
“Noncontrast CT scans are available at all stroke centers so this study is more practical, highly generalizable, and more applicable globally,” Dr. Zaidat commented.
“However, our results suggest that when using noncontrast CT only to select patients, the gain or treatment effect of thrombectomy seems to be smaller than when using sophisticated advanced imaging to make the decision to go for thrombectomy or not as in the other trials,” he added.
The TESLA trial results were presented at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
The study included 300 stroke patients with anterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion (NIHSS of 6 or more) with a large‐core infarction (investigator read ASPECTS Score 2-5), selected on the basis of noncontrast CT scan, who were randomized to undergo intra-arterial thrombectomy or best medical management (control) up to 24 hours from last known well.
The trial had a Bayesian probabilities design, with a primary endpoint of the 90-day utility-weighted mRS (uw-mRS), a relatively new patient-centered outcome used in stroke trials, which includes a quality-of-life measurement. Utilities represent preferences for mRS health states and range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), so in contrast to the traditional mRS scores, a higher uw-mRS score is better.
The 90-day uw-MRS scores were 2.93 in the thrombectomy group vs. 2.27 in the control group.
The Bayesian probability of thrombectomy superiority was 0.957, which Dr. Zaidat said was “similar” to a P value of .043, but this was less than the prespecified superiority probability of > .975 to declare efficacy.
A separate analysis in a population of patients selected by core-lab read noncontrast CT scan, showed a Bayesian probability of benefit with thrombectomy of 0.98, “similar” to one-sided P value of .02.
In terms of secondary endpoints, there were also some encouraging trends, including a suggestion of benefit in the 90-day mRS ordinal shift (odds ratio 1.40; P = .06).
The number of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) was 14% in the thrombectomy groups vs. 9% in the control group (P = .09); and a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3) was achieved in 30% of thrombectomy patients vs. 20% of those in the control group (P = .03).
Major neurological improvement (NIHSS scale of 0-2 or improvement of 8 points or more) occurred in 26% of thrombectomy patients vs. 13% of controls (P = .0008).
Quality of life, measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey, also showed a trend towards improvement in the thrombectomy group with mean scores of 53 vs. 46 (P = .058).
In terms of safety, all-cause mortality was similar in the two groups (35% thrombectomy and 33% control) and symptomatic intracerebral hemmorhage (ICH) occurred in 3.97% of thrombectomy vs. 1.34% of control patients (relative risk, 2.96).
“Cost-effective analysis and additional subgroup studies will provide more insight about the training needs to read the CT scan and if there is any value to treat patients with an ASPECTS score of 2,” Dr. Zaidat concluded.
“Larger pooled analysis will also be very useful in understanding the threshold of brain volume with irreversible damage beyond which thrombectomy wouldn’t be helpful,” he added.
Meta-analysis of previous studies: MAGNA
Another presentation at the ESOC meeting reported an individual patient data meta-analysis (MAGNA) of the three previous trials suggesting benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large-core ischemic strokes of the anterior circulation up to 24 hours of last known well.
The RESCUE Japan Limit trial was conducted in Japan; the SELECT-2 trial in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; and the ANGEL ASPECT trial in China.
In total, the meta-analysis included 1,009 patients, half of whom received thrombectomy and half received medical management only.
Results showed that in the whole population in the three trials, the use of thrombectomy improved functional outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.78 (P < .001).
Functional independence (mRS 0-2) was also increased (23% vs. 9%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.62; P < .001); as was independent ambulation (mRS, 0-3; 41% vs. 24%; aRR, 1.76; P < .001).
But early neurological worsening was more frequent with thrombectomy (aRR 1.42, 1.09-1.84, P = .010).
No difference in mortality was identified between thrombectomy (27%) and medical management (28%) or in rates of symptomatic ICH (1.8% thrombectomy vs. 1.6% medical management).
“The results from the previously published large-core trials and from this pooled dataset provide unequivocal evidence on the efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large-core infarcts,” lead author of the MAGNA meta-analysis, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, affiliate of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, concluded.
“The benefit persists across the spectrum of age, clinical severity, and time, with clear benefit up to an estimated ischemic core volume of 150 mL,” he added. “We have great hopes that these results will lead to more patients being treated and achieving improved functional outcomes.”
On how the TESLA results fit in with the previous three trials, Dr. Sarraj pointed out to this news organization that the TESLA trial was conducted in the United States and enrolled patients based on ASPECTS 2-5 on noncontrast CT.
“The primary outcome for intention-to-treat analysis did not reach the prespecified threshold for efficacy, but the results were largely in the same direction as shown in SELECT2, ANGEL ASPECT, and RESCUE Japan Limit,” he said. “These findings further emphasize the efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core, at the same time reinforcing the need to provide results from pooled data from all large-core trials.”
He noted that results from two further trials of thrombectomy in large core strokes, TENSION and LASTE – both of which have now been stopped early because of the positive findings from the previous studies – are expected soon, and the MAGNA meta-analysis will be updated to include data from all six trials.
“This will increase the accuracy of the estimation of the treatment effect and will give even more power to look further into the details related to subgroups and selection imaging modalities,” Dr. Sarraj added.
The research team hopes that this joint effort will eventually set the pathway for selection algorithms and treatment boundaries in patients with large-vessel occlusion.
TESLA was an investigator-initiated study funded by unrestricted grants from Cerenovus, Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, and Genentech. Dr. Zaidat is a consultant for Stryker, Cerenovus, Penumbra, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
Survival similar with hearts donated after circulatory or brain death
in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.
“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.
“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.
The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.
“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”
The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.
But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.
There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.
The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.
For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).
The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.
A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).
The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).
There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.
Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.
More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.
The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.
“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.
“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”
He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”
The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.
On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”
“Exciting” results
In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”
However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.
“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.
However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”
“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”
The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.
“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.
“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.
The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.
“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”
The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.
But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.
There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.
The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.
For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).
The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.
A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).
The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).
There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.
Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.
More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.
The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.
“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.
“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”
He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”
The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.
On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”
“Exciting” results
In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”
However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.
“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.
However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”
“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”
The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.
“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.
“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.
The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.
“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”
The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.
But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.
There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.
The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.
For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).
The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.
A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).
The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).
There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.
Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.
More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.
The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.
“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.
“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”
He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”
The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.
On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”
“Exciting” results
In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”
However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.
“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.
However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”
“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”
The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Preventive antipyretics, antibiotics not needed in stroke
“The results of PRECIOUS do not support preventive use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke,” senior study author Bart van der Worp, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands, concluded.
“This trial was all about prevention,” trial co-investigator, Philip Bath, MD, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), said in an interview.
“It was trying to improve outcomes by preventing infection, fever, and aspiration pneumonia, but the message from these results is that while we should be on the lookout for these complications and treat them early when they occur, we don’t need to give these medications on a prophylactic basis.”
The PREvention of Complications to Improve OUtcome in elderly patients with acute Stroke (PRECIOUS) trial was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
Dr. Van der Worp explained that infections, fever, and aspiration pneumonia frequently occur following stroke, particularly in older patients, and these poststroke complications are associated with an increased risk of death and poor functional outcome.
“We assessed whether a pharmacological strategy to reduce the risk of infections and fever improves outcomes of elderly patients with moderately severe or severe stroke,” he said.
Previous studies looking at this approach have been performed in broad populations of stroke patients who had a relatively low risk of poststroke complications, thereby reducing the potential for benefit from these interventions.
The current PRECIOUS trial was therefore conducted in a more selective elderly population with more severe strokes, a group believed to be at higher risk of infection and fever.
The trial included patients aged 66 years or older with moderately severe to severe ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥ 6) or intracerebral hemorrhage.
They were randomized in a 3 x 2 factorial design to oral, rectal, or intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg three times a day); intravenous ceftriaxone (2,000 mg once daily); oral, rectal, or intravenous paracetamol (1,000 mg four times daily); or usual care.
Medications were started within 24 hours after symptom onset and continued for 4 days or until complete recovery or discharge from hospital, if earlier.
“We assessed these three simple, safe, and inexpensive therapies – paracetamol to prevent fever; the antiemetic, metoclopramide, to prevent aspiration; and ceftriaxone, which is the preferred antibiotic for post-stroke pneumonia in the Netherlands,” Dr. van der Worp said.
The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days.
The trial was aiming to enroll 3,800 patients from 67 European sites but was stopped after 1,493 patients had been included because of lack of funding. After excluding patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up, 1,471 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
Results showed no effect on the primary outcome of any of the prophylactic treatments.
“None of the medications had any effect on the functional outcome at 90 days. This was a surprise to me,” Dr. Van der Worp commented. “I had expected that at least one of the medications would have been of benefit.”
A secondary outcome was the diagnosis of pneumonia, which again was not reduced by any of the medications.
“Remarkably, neither ceftriaxone nor metoclopramide had any effect on the risk of developing pneumonia. It was all quite disappointing,” van der Worp said.
There was, however, a reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections in the ceftriaxone group.
Trying to explain why there was a reduction in urinary tract infections but not pneumonia with the antibiotic, Dr. Van der Worp pointed out that poststroke pneumonia is to a large extent caused by a mechanical process (aspiration), and bacteria may only play a minor role in its development.
He said he was therefore surprised that metoclopramide, which should prevent the mechanical process of aspiration, did not reduce the development of pneumonia.
He suggested that some patients may have already experienced aspiration before the metoclopramide was started, noting that many patients with acute stroke already have signs of pneumonia on CT scan in the first few hours after symptom onset.
A previous smaller study (MAPS) had shown a lower rate of pneumonia in stroke patients given metoclopramide, but in this study the drug was given for 3 weeks.
Discussing the PRECIOUS trial at the ESOC meeting, Christine Roffe, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Keele (England) University, and senior investigator of the MAPS study, suggested that a longer period of metoclopramide treatment may be needed than the 4 days given in the PRECIOUS study, as the risk of pneumonia persists for longer than just a few days.
She noted that another trial (MAPS-2) is now underway in the United Kingdom to try and confirm the first MAPS result with longer duration metoclopramide.
Dr. Van der Worp responded: “Certainly, I think that the MAPS-2 study should be continued. It is investigating a much longer duration of treatment, which may be beneficial, especially in patients with more severe strokes.”
On the reason for the disappointing results with paracetamol, Dr. Van der Worp elaborated: “We found that only a very few of these older patients developed a fever – only about 5% in the control group. Paracetamol did reduce the risk of fever, but because the proportion of patients who developed fever was so small, this may have been why it didn’t translate into any effect on the functional outcome.”
Dr. Roffe concluded that PRECIOUS was an important study. “There is also a positive message here. We have all been worried about using too many antibiotics. We need to make sure we use these drugs responsibly. I think this trial has told us there is little point in using antibiotics in a preventative way in these patients.”
She added that although the trial was stopped prematurely, it had produced decisive results.
“Yes, I believe that even if the trial was much larger, we still would not have shown an effect,” Dr. Van der Worp agreed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The results of PRECIOUS do not support preventive use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke,” senior study author Bart van der Worp, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands, concluded.
“This trial was all about prevention,” trial co-investigator, Philip Bath, MD, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), said in an interview.
“It was trying to improve outcomes by preventing infection, fever, and aspiration pneumonia, but the message from these results is that while we should be on the lookout for these complications and treat them early when they occur, we don’t need to give these medications on a prophylactic basis.”
The PREvention of Complications to Improve OUtcome in elderly patients with acute Stroke (PRECIOUS) trial was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
Dr. Van der Worp explained that infections, fever, and aspiration pneumonia frequently occur following stroke, particularly in older patients, and these poststroke complications are associated with an increased risk of death and poor functional outcome.
“We assessed whether a pharmacological strategy to reduce the risk of infections and fever improves outcomes of elderly patients with moderately severe or severe stroke,” he said.
Previous studies looking at this approach have been performed in broad populations of stroke patients who had a relatively low risk of poststroke complications, thereby reducing the potential for benefit from these interventions.
The current PRECIOUS trial was therefore conducted in a more selective elderly population with more severe strokes, a group believed to be at higher risk of infection and fever.
The trial included patients aged 66 years or older with moderately severe to severe ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥ 6) or intracerebral hemorrhage.
They were randomized in a 3 x 2 factorial design to oral, rectal, or intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg three times a day); intravenous ceftriaxone (2,000 mg once daily); oral, rectal, or intravenous paracetamol (1,000 mg four times daily); or usual care.
Medications were started within 24 hours after symptom onset and continued for 4 days or until complete recovery or discharge from hospital, if earlier.
“We assessed these three simple, safe, and inexpensive therapies – paracetamol to prevent fever; the antiemetic, metoclopramide, to prevent aspiration; and ceftriaxone, which is the preferred antibiotic for post-stroke pneumonia in the Netherlands,” Dr. van der Worp said.
The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days.
The trial was aiming to enroll 3,800 patients from 67 European sites but was stopped after 1,493 patients had been included because of lack of funding. After excluding patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up, 1,471 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
Results showed no effect on the primary outcome of any of the prophylactic treatments.
“None of the medications had any effect on the functional outcome at 90 days. This was a surprise to me,” Dr. Van der Worp commented. “I had expected that at least one of the medications would have been of benefit.”
A secondary outcome was the diagnosis of pneumonia, which again was not reduced by any of the medications.
“Remarkably, neither ceftriaxone nor metoclopramide had any effect on the risk of developing pneumonia. It was all quite disappointing,” van der Worp said.
There was, however, a reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections in the ceftriaxone group.
Trying to explain why there was a reduction in urinary tract infections but not pneumonia with the antibiotic, Dr. Van der Worp pointed out that poststroke pneumonia is to a large extent caused by a mechanical process (aspiration), and bacteria may only play a minor role in its development.
He said he was therefore surprised that metoclopramide, which should prevent the mechanical process of aspiration, did not reduce the development of pneumonia.
He suggested that some patients may have already experienced aspiration before the metoclopramide was started, noting that many patients with acute stroke already have signs of pneumonia on CT scan in the first few hours after symptom onset.
A previous smaller study (MAPS) had shown a lower rate of pneumonia in stroke patients given metoclopramide, but in this study the drug was given for 3 weeks.
Discussing the PRECIOUS trial at the ESOC meeting, Christine Roffe, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Keele (England) University, and senior investigator of the MAPS study, suggested that a longer period of metoclopramide treatment may be needed than the 4 days given in the PRECIOUS study, as the risk of pneumonia persists for longer than just a few days.
She noted that another trial (MAPS-2) is now underway in the United Kingdom to try and confirm the first MAPS result with longer duration metoclopramide.
Dr. Van der Worp responded: “Certainly, I think that the MAPS-2 study should be continued. It is investigating a much longer duration of treatment, which may be beneficial, especially in patients with more severe strokes.”
On the reason for the disappointing results with paracetamol, Dr. Van der Worp elaborated: “We found that only a very few of these older patients developed a fever – only about 5% in the control group. Paracetamol did reduce the risk of fever, but because the proportion of patients who developed fever was so small, this may have been why it didn’t translate into any effect on the functional outcome.”
Dr. Roffe concluded that PRECIOUS was an important study. “There is also a positive message here. We have all been worried about using too many antibiotics. We need to make sure we use these drugs responsibly. I think this trial has told us there is little point in using antibiotics in a preventative way in these patients.”
She added that although the trial was stopped prematurely, it had produced decisive results.
“Yes, I believe that even if the trial was much larger, we still would not have shown an effect,” Dr. Van der Worp agreed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The results of PRECIOUS do not support preventive use of antiemetic, antipyretic, or antibiotic drugs in older patients with acute stroke,” senior study author Bart van der Worp, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands, concluded.
“This trial was all about prevention,” trial co-investigator, Philip Bath, MD, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), said in an interview.
“It was trying to improve outcomes by preventing infection, fever, and aspiration pneumonia, but the message from these results is that while we should be on the lookout for these complications and treat them early when they occur, we don’t need to give these medications on a prophylactic basis.”
The PREvention of Complications to Improve OUtcome in elderly patients with acute Stroke (PRECIOUS) trial was presented at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.
Dr. Van der Worp explained that infections, fever, and aspiration pneumonia frequently occur following stroke, particularly in older patients, and these poststroke complications are associated with an increased risk of death and poor functional outcome.
“We assessed whether a pharmacological strategy to reduce the risk of infections and fever improves outcomes of elderly patients with moderately severe or severe stroke,” he said.
Previous studies looking at this approach have been performed in broad populations of stroke patients who had a relatively low risk of poststroke complications, thereby reducing the potential for benefit from these interventions.
The current PRECIOUS trial was therefore conducted in a more selective elderly population with more severe strokes, a group believed to be at higher risk of infection and fever.
The trial included patients aged 66 years or older with moderately severe to severe ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥ 6) or intracerebral hemorrhage.
They were randomized in a 3 x 2 factorial design to oral, rectal, or intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg three times a day); intravenous ceftriaxone (2,000 mg once daily); oral, rectal, or intravenous paracetamol (1,000 mg four times daily); or usual care.
Medications were started within 24 hours after symptom onset and continued for 4 days or until complete recovery or discharge from hospital, if earlier.
“We assessed these three simple, safe, and inexpensive therapies – paracetamol to prevent fever; the antiemetic, metoclopramide, to prevent aspiration; and ceftriaxone, which is the preferred antibiotic for post-stroke pneumonia in the Netherlands,” Dr. van der Worp said.
The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days.
The trial was aiming to enroll 3,800 patients from 67 European sites but was stopped after 1,493 patients had been included because of lack of funding. After excluding patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up, 1,471 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
Results showed no effect on the primary outcome of any of the prophylactic treatments.
“None of the medications had any effect on the functional outcome at 90 days. This was a surprise to me,” Dr. Van der Worp commented. “I had expected that at least one of the medications would have been of benefit.”
A secondary outcome was the diagnosis of pneumonia, which again was not reduced by any of the medications.
“Remarkably, neither ceftriaxone nor metoclopramide had any effect on the risk of developing pneumonia. It was all quite disappointing,” van der Worp said.
There was, however, a reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections in the ceftriaxone group.
Trying to explain why there was a reduction in urinary tract infections but not pneumonia with the antibiotic, Dr. Van der Worp pointed out that poststroke pneumonia is to a large extent caused by a mechanical process (aspiration), and bacteria may only play a minor role in its development.
He said he was therefore surprised that metoclopramide, which should prevent the mechanical process of aspiration, did not reduce the development of pneumonia.
He suggested that some patients may have already experienced aspiration before the metoclopramide was started, noting that many patients with acute stroke already have signs of pneumonia on CT scan in the first few hours after symptom onset.
A previous smaller study (MAPS) had shown a lower rate of pneumonia in stroke patients given metoclopramide, but in this study the drug was given for 3 weeks.
Discussing the PRECIOUS trial at the ESOC meeting, Christine Roffe, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Keele (England) University, and senior investigator of the MAPS study, suggested that a longer period of metoclopramide treatment may be needed than the 4 days given in the PRECIOUS study, as the risk of pneumonia persists for longer than just a few days.
She noted that another trial (MAPS-2) is now underway in the United Kingdom to try and confirm the first MAPS result with longer duration metoclopramide.
Dr. Van der Worp responded: “Certainly, I think that the MAPS-2 study should be continued. It is investigating a much longer duration of treatment, which may be beneficial, especially in patients with more severe strokes.”
On the reason for the disappointing results with paracetamol, Dr. Van der Worp elaborated: “We found that only a very few of these older patients developed a fever – only about 5% in the control group. Paracetamol did reduce the risk of fever, but because the proportion of patients who developed fever was so small, this may have been why it didn’t translate into any effect on the functional outcome.”
Dr. Roffe concluded that PRECIOUS was an important study. “There is also a positive message here. We have all been worried about using too many antibiotics. We need to make sure we use these drugs responsibly. I think this trial has told us there is little point in using antibiotics in a preventative way in these patients.”
She added that although the trial was stopped prematurely, it had produced decisive results.
“Yes, I believe that even if the trial was much larger, we still would not have shown an effect,” Dr. Van der Worp agreed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
Tenecteplase late after stroke misses endpoint: TIMELESS
However, there were some encouraging trends, and there did not appear to be an increase in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), leading to hope that the option of late thrombolysis in this group of patients may still have potential.
The TIMELESS study tested the approach of giving thrombolysis with tenecteplase (TNK) to patients with a large-vessel occlusion stroke up to 24 hours after symptom onset. Patients were selected by perfusion imaging, and those who had a stroke with a small core and large amount of salvageable brain tissue were included in the placebo-controlled study.
“This is first trial to try giving a thrombolytic so late – up to 24 hours after last known well. While we did not meet the primary outcome, there were some promising findings,” lead author, Gregory Albers, MD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Stroke Center and professor of neurology at Stanford University, said in an interview.
“The most encouraging observation was that we did not show any safety issues with giving TNK to this population at such a late time. Many people thought this would be too high risk but there was no increase in ICH, which was very low and the same in both groups,” Dr. Albers said.
“And we saw some evidence of drug effect. There appeared to be a benefit in patients with M1 occlusions, the most common type of large-vessel occlusion, who represented half the patients in the study,” he added.
The researchers also gained information on the logistics and timing of TNK administration in this late period which they hope can guide the design of a future trial.
Dr. Albers presented the TIMELESS trial at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference.
He explained that there is increasing evidence that intravenous thrombolysis can improve outcome in selected patients even beyond the traditional 4.5-hour time window.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled TIMELESS study sought to investigate whether tenecteplase administered to patients with ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion presenting between 4.5 and 24 hours after last known well would improve clinical outcome as measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at day 90.
The trial included 458 patients with an internal carotid artery occlusion or middle cerebral artery segment 1 or 2 occlusion and presenting with salvageable tissue on imaging. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg; maximum, 25 mg) or placebo.
The proportion of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy were similar between the two treatment arms (around 77%). The study completion rate was higher than 96% in both treatment arms.
The primary endpoint analyses showed no significant difference in the odds of a lower mRS score at day 90, but there was a slight trend toward benefit in the TNK group in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.56; P = .48).
The percentage of patients achieving a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS of 0-2, was not significantly different between the treatment groups: 46% in the TNK group versus 42% in the placebo group (nominal P = .41).
Promising safety data
There were no significant safety issues, and the risk for bleeding was not significantly increased in the tenecteplase group. Symptomatic ICH occurred in 3.2% of the TNK group versus 2.3% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference.
“The low rate of ICH with TNK at this late time point is very reassuring,” Dr. Albers said. “We believe the reason for the low ICH rate is probably because these patients were selected for small core strokes. We also found that there was a trend towards the most benefit from TNK in patients with the smallest cores, supporting the use of imaging to select patients.”
The secondary endpoint of complete recanalization at 24-hours post randomization was higher in the TNK group at 76.7%, compared with 63.9% in the placebo group (P = .006).
Benefit in M1 occlusions?
Subgroup analysis showed that there appeared to be a benefit of TNK in the 227 patients included who had an M1 occlusion. In this group, the common odds ratio for a more favorable outcome in the mRS shift analysis with TNK was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.00-2.52; adjusted nominal P = .051).
The percentage of patients with a favorable outcome (mRS, 0-2) at 90 days in the M1 occlusion subgroup was 45.9% for TNK versus 31.4% for placebo, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.14-3.66; nominal P = .017).
But Dr. Albers cautioned that this was an exploratory analysis, and no formal conclusions should be drawn from these data.
“We saw very strong results in favor of giving thrombolysis in the patients with M1 occlusions. We had preliminary pilot data suggesting this approach may work in these patients,” he commented.
“But we included the smaller M2 occlusions as well, because we thought that as there should be less clot in an M2 occlusion it might be easier to dissolve with thrombolysis,” he added. “But surprisingly, the M2 occlusion patients seemed to do worse with TNK than placebo, and the M1 patients did better.”
Timing of TNK
Dr. Albers said that there was also information from in the study on the timing of TNK administration.
In patients who also received thrombectomy, who made up of the majority of those in the study, the average time of TNK administration was only 20 minutes before the thrombectomy procedure.
“We had hoped to have a longer time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy so the drug would have more time to work. The idea was that patients would be given TNK at the primary stroke center before being transferred for thrombectomy, but actually only a few patients received TNK at the primary stroke center,” Dr. Albers explained.
“But, again surprisingly, we found that patients given TNK right at the time of the thrombectomy procedure seemed to show a trend toward benefit over placebo,” he reported.
He suggested that this may be caused by the thrombolytic dissolving the small fragments that can sometimes break off and cause further occlusions when the clot is removed by thrombectomy.
“We have learned a lot from this study, and we are planning to go forward with the information gained to plan a second study, in which we will focus on patients with M1 occlusions and try to get the drug on board at primary stroke centers, so it has more time to work before thrombectomy,” he added.
Commenting on the TIMELESS study at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that he thought the trial had shown three important results: “Firstly, TNK appeared to be safe in this late window in these selected patients – that is a very important observation. Secondly, reperfusion rates at 24 hours were increased with TNK and we know that this translates into clinical benefit. And thirdly, there was a neutral effect on primary outcomes, but I think the sample size of 438 patients was not large enough to show efficacy.”
Dr. Tsivgoulis concluded that these points need to be addressed in future trials.
The TIMELESS trial was funded by Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, there were some encouraging trends, and there did not appear to be an increase in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), leading to hope that the option of late thrombolysis in this group of patients may still have potential.
The TIMELESS study tested the approach of giving thrombolysis with tenecteplase (TNK) to patients with a large-vessel occlusion stroke up to 24 hours after symptom onset. Patients were selected by perfusion imaging, and those who had a stroke with a small core and large amount of salvageable brain tissue were included in the placebo-controlled study.
“This is first trial to try giving a thrombolytic so late – up to 24 hours after last known well. While we did not meet the primary outcome, there were some promising findings,” lead author, Gregory Albers, MD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Stroke Center and professor of neurology at Stanford University, said in an interview.
“The most encouraging observation was that we did not show any safety issues with giving TNK to this population at such a late time. Many people thought this would be too high risk but there was no increase in ICH, which was very low and the same in both groups,” Dr. Albers said.
“And we saw some evidence of drug effect. There appeared to be a benefit in patients with M1 occlusions, the most common type of large-vessel occlusion, who represented half the patients in the study,” he added.
The researchers also gained information on the logistics and timing of TNK administration in this late period which they hope can guide the design of a future trial.
Dr. Albers presented the TIMELESS trial at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference.
He explained that there is increasing evidence that intravenous thrombolysis can improve outcome in selected patients even beyond the traditional 4.5-hour time window.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled TIMELESS study sought to investigate whether tenecteplase administered to patients with ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion presenting between 4.5 and 24 hours after last known well would improve clinical outcome as measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at day 90.
The trial included 458 patients with an internal carotid artery occlusion or middle cerebral artery segment 1 or 2 occlusion and presenting with salvageable tissue on imaging. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg; maximum, 25 mg) or placebo.
The proportion of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy were similar between the two treatment arms (around 77%). The study completion rate was higher than 96% in both treatment arms.
The primary endpoint analyses showed no significant difference in the odds of a lower mRS score at day 90, but there was a slight trend toward benefit in the TNK group in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.56; P = .48).
The percentage of patients achieving a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS of 0-2, was not significantly different between the treatment groups: 46% in the TNK group versus 42% in the placebo group (nominal P = .41).
Promising safety data
There were no significant safety issues, and the risk for bleeding was not significantly increased in the tenecteplase group. Symptomatic ICH occurred in 3.2% of the TNK group versus 2.3% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference.
“The low rate of ICH with TNK at this late time point is very reassuring,” Dr. Albers said. “We believe the reason for the low ICH rate is probably because these patients were selected for small core strokes. We also found that there was a trend towards the most benefit from TNK in patients with the smallest cores, supporting the use of imaging to select patients.”
The secondary endpoint of complete recanalization at 24-hours post randomization was higher in the TNK group at 76.7%, compared with 63.9% in the placebo group (P = .006).
Benefit in M1 occlusions?
Subgroup analysis showed that there appeared to be a benefit of TNK in the 227 patients included who had an M1 occlusion. In this group, the common odds ratio for a more favorable outcome in the mRS shift analysis with TNK was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.00-2.52; adjusted nominal P = .051).
The percentage of patients with a favorable outcome (mRS, 0-2) at 90 days in the M1 occlusion subgroup was 45.9% for TNK versus 31.4% for placebo, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.14-3.66; nominal P = .017).
But Dr. Albers cautioned that this was an exploratory analysis, and no formal conclusions should be drawn from these data.
“We saw very strong results in favor of giving thrombolysis in the patients with M1 occlusions. We had preliminary pilot data suggesting this approach may work in these patients,” he commented.
“But we included the smaller M2 occlusions as well, because we thought that as there should be less clot in an M2 occlusion it might be easier to dissolve with thrombolysis,” he added. “But surprisingly, the M2 occlusion patients seemed to do worse with TNK than placebo, and the M1 patients did better.”
Timing of TNK
Dr. Albers said that there was also information from in the study on the timing of TNK administration.
In patients who also received thrombectomy, who made up of the majority of those in the study, the average time of TNK administration was only 20 minutes before the thrombectomy procedure.
“We had hoped to have a longer time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy so the drug would have more time to work. The idea was that patients would be given TNK at the primary stroke center before being transferred for thrombectomy, but actually only a few patients received TNK at the primary stroke center,” Dr. Albers explained.
“But, again surprisingly, we found that patients given TNK right at the time of the thrombectomy procedure seemed to show a trend toward benefit over placebo,” he reported.
He suggested that this may be caused by the thrombolytic dissolving the small fragments that can sometimes break off and cause further occlusions when the clot is removed by thrombectomy.
“We have learned a lot from this study, and we are planning to go forward with the information gained to plan a second study, in which we will focus on patients with M1 occlusions and try to get the drug on board at primary stroke centers, so it has more time to work before thrombectomy,” he added.
Commenting on the TIMELESS study at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that he thought the trial had shown three important results: “Firstly, TNK appeared to be safe in this late window in these selected patients – that is a very important observation. Secondly, reperfusion rates at 24 hours were increased with TNK and we know that this translates into clinical benefit. And thirdly, there was a neutral effect on primary outcomes, but I think the sample size of 438 patients was not large enough to show efficacy.”
Dr. Tsivgoulis concluded that these points need to be addressed in future trials.
The TIMELESS trial was funded by Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, there were some encouraging trends, and there did not appear to be an increase in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), leading to hope that the option of late thrombolysis in this group of patients may still have potential.
The TIMELESS study tested the approach of giving thrombolysis with tenecteplase (TNK) to patients with a large-vessel occlusion stroke up to 24 hours after symptom onset. Patients were selected by perfusion imaging, and those who had a stroke with a small core and large amount of salvageable brain tissue were included in the placebo-controlled study.
“This is first trial to try giving a thrombolytic so late – up to 24 hours after last known well. While we did not meet the primary outcome, there were some promising findings,” lead author, Gregory Albers, MD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Stroke Center and professor of neurology at Stanford University, said in an interview.
“The most encouraging observation was that we did not show any safety issues with giving TNK to this population at such a late time. Many people thought this would be too high risk but there was no increase in ICH, which was very low and the same in both groups,” Dr. Albers said.
“And we saw some evidence of drug effect. There appeared to be a benefit in patients with M1 occlusions, the most common type of large-vessel occlusion, who represented half the patients in the study,” he added.
The researchers also gained information on the logistics and timing of TNK administration in this late period which they hope can guide the design of a future trial.
Dr. Albers presented the TIMELESS trial at the annual European Stroke Organisation Conference.
He explained that there is increasing evidence that intravenous thrombolysis can improve outcome in selected patients even beyond the traditional 4.5-hour time window.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled TIMELESS study sought to investigate whether tenecteplase administered to patients with ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion presenting between 4.5 and 24 hours after last known well would improve clinical outcome as measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at day 90.
The trial included 458 patients with an internal carotid artery occlusion or middle cerebral artery segment 1 or 2 occlusion and presenting with salvageable tissue on imaging. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to either intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg; maximum, 25 mg) or placebo.
The proportion of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy were similar between the two treatment arms (around 77%). The study completion rate was higher than 96% in both treatment arms.
The primary endpoint analyses showed no significant difference in the odds of a lower mRS score at day 90, but there was a slight trend toward benefit in the TNK group in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.56; P = .48).
The percentage of patients achieving a favorable outcome, defined as an mRS of 0-2, was not significantly different between the treatment groups: 46% in the TNK group versus 42% in the placebo group (nominal P = .41).
Promising safety data
There were no significant safety issues, and the risk for bleeding was not significantly increased in the tenecteplase group. Symptomatic ICH occurred in 3.2% of the TNK group versus 2.3% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference.
“The low rate of ICH with TNK at this late time point is very reassuring,” Dr. Albers said. “We believe the reason for the low ICH rate is probably because these patients were selected for small core strokes. We also found that there was a trend towards the most benefit from TNK in patients with the smallest cores, supporting the use of imaging to select patients.”
The secondary endpoint of complete recanalization at 24-hours post randomization was higher in the TNK group at 76.7%, compared with 63.9% in the placebo group (P = .006).
Benefit in M1 occlusions?
Subgroup analysis showed that there appeared to be a benefit of TNK in the 227 patients included who had an M1 occlusion. In this group, the common odds ratio for a more favorable outcome in the mRS shift analysis with TNK was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.00-2.52; adjusted nominal P = .051).
The percentage of patients with a favorable outcome (mRS, 0-2) at 90 days in the M1 occlusion subgroup was 45.9% for TNK versus 31.4% for placebo, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.14-3.66; nominal P = .017).
But Dr. Albers cautioned that this was an exploratory analysis, and no formal conclusions should be drawn from these data.
“We saw very strong results in favor of giving thrombolysis in the patients with M1 occlusions. We had preliminary pilot data suggesting this approach may work in these patients,” he commented.
“But we included the smaller M2 occlusions as well, because we thought that as there should be less clot in an M2 occlusion it might be easier to dissolve with thrombolysis,” he added. “But surprisingly, the M2 occlusion patients seemed to do worse with TNK than placebo, and the M1 patients did better.”
Timing of TNK
Dr. Albers said that there was also information from in the study on the timing of TNK administration.
In patients who also received thrombectomy, who made up of the majority of those in the study, the average time of TNK administration was only 20 minutes before the thrombectomy procedure.
“We had hoped to have a longer time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy so the drug would have more time to work. The idea was that patients would be given TNK at the primary stroke center before being transferred for thrombectomy, but actually only a few patients received TNK at the primary stroke center,” Dr. Albers explained.
“But, again surprisingly, we found that patients given TNK right at the time of the thrombectomy procedure seemed to show a trend toward benefit over placebo,” he reported.
He suggested that this may be caused by the thrombolytic dissolving the small fragments that can sometimes break off and cause further occlusions when the clot is removed by thrombectomy.
“We have learned a lot from this study, and we are planning to go forward with the information gained to plan a second study, in which we will focus on patients with M1 occlusions and try to get the drug on board at primary stroke centers, so it has more time to work before thrombectomy,” he added.
Commenting on the TIMELESS study at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that he thought the trial had shown three important results: “Firstly, TNK appeared to be safe in this late window in these selected patients – that is a very important observation. Secondly, reperfusion rates at 24 hours were increased with TNK and we know that this translates into clinical benefit. And thirdly, there was a neutral effect on primary outcomes, but I think the sample size of 438 patients was not large enough to show efficacy.”
Dr. Tsivgoulis concluded that these points need to be addressed in future trials.
The TIMELESS trial was funded by Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
Care bundle improves outcome in ICH: INTERACT3
The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.
“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.
“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.
‘Game changer’
“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”
Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.
“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.
The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”
The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.
The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.
Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.
The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.
Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.
The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).
Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).
NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability
“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”
The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.
Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.
“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”
Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.
He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.
“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”
Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.
“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.
The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.
‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity
Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.
“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”
In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”
Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”
The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.
“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.
“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.
‘Game changer’
“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”
Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.
“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.
The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”
The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.
The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.
Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.
The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.
Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.
The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).
Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).
NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability
“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”
The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.
Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.
“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”
Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.
He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.
“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”
Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.
“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.
The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.
‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity
Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.
“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”
In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”
Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”
The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.
“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.
“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.
‘Game changer’
“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”
Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.
“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.
The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”
The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.
The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.
Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.
The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.
Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.
The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).
Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).
NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability
“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”
The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.
Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.
“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”
Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.
He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.
“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”
Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.
“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.
The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.
‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity
Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.
“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”
In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”
Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”
The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESO 2023
Earlier anticoagulation safe in stroke with AFib: ELAN
, a new study suggests.
The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.
“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.
“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.
Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”
Dr. Fischer presented the results of the ELAN trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) in Munich. The trial was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
He explained that patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke who are found to have atrial fibrillation need to be started on anticoagulation to reduce the risk for a recurrent stroke. But there are no clear guidelines on when to start anticoagulation in these patients at present, with concerns that starting very early may increase the risk for hemorrhagic transformation and ICH.
Based on observations that patients with larger strokes have a higher risk for ICH in the early post-stroke period, some guidelines advise different times for starting anticoagulation for different stroke severities: 1 day for a transient ischemic attack, 3 days for a minor stroke, 6 days for a moderate stroke, and 12 days for a severe stroke – known as the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-day rule.
“But this is not based on evidence – just on expert opinion,” Dr. Fischer noted. “The ELAN trial was conducted to obtain more solid information on optimal timing for starting anticoagulation and whether we can safely start a DOAC earlier than these guidelines currently advise.”
For the trial, which was conducted in 15 countries, 2,013 patients with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have AFib were randomly selected to start DOAC treatment earlier or later.
The later-treatment strategy followed the current approach of starting treatment at day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke, whereas the earlier-treatment group started DOAC treatment within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke.
In terms of stroke severity, which was defined on imaging-based criteria, 37% of patients had a minor stroke, 40% had a moderate stroke, and 23% had a major stroke.
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization.
Results showed that this occurred in 2.9% in the early-treatment group and 4.1% in the later-treatment group (risk difference, –1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –2.84-0.47) by 30 days.
Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 1.4% in the early-treatment group and 2.5% in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.07). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in two participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days.
The rates of the outcomes increased only slightly more at 90 days than at 30 days, “findings that suggest there was not an excessive risk associated with early anticoagulation through that period,” the researchers report in the NEJM paper.
“Early treatment initiation can therefore be supported if indicated or if desired,” they conclude.
“The most important finding was that among 2,000 patients randomized, there was a very low rate of bleeding complications and no increase in any bleeding complication in the early DOAC group. This has been a major worry about starting anticoagulation early,” Dr. Fischer commented.
“These are very practical findings in that we can keep things simple,” Dr. Dawson added. “If the patient has a big stroke, anticoagulation with a DOAC can now be started at 6 days. For everyone else, we can start DOAC treatment as soon as possible without fear of causing harm. So, we can now confidently give patients with a minor or moderate stroke, as defined by imaging, a beneficial treatment as soon as we establish they are having an ischemic stroke and have AFib.”
Dr. Dawson pointed out that about 25% of patients with ischemic stroke are found to have AFib on admission ECG, and in another 4%-5%, AFib is found in the first 48 hours. “These are the patients we are targeting in this study.”
The researchers note that the trial did not have a statistical superiority or noninferiority design but rather aimed to estimate the treatment effects of early initiation versus later initiation of DOACs.
“This trial was slightly different in that we weren’t testing a strict statistical hypothesis because we didn’t have any data with which to formulate what sort of effect size to aim for, so we performed a qualitative trial to look at what the event rates were with the two approaches,” Dr. Fischer explained. “Our main findings are that ICH rates were not increased with early DOAC treatment and that ischemic event rates were numerically reduced, but because we didn’t have strict statistical limits, we can only say this is a high probability but not a certainty.”
Dr. Dawson added: “We can say from these results that there is a high level of probability that early DOAC treatment does not cause harm and a reasonable probability that it reduces risks of a recurrent stroke or other ischemic event.”
The researchers give an estimate of the effect size for the primary composite endpoint, which combines the major ischemic and bleeding events, ranging from a 2.8% lower risk to a 0.5% higher risk with early DOAC treatment.
“So, it is very likely that the composite endpoint would be lower,” Dr. Dawson said.
Dr. Fischer noted that a previous study (TIMING) tried to address the issue of earlier versus later anticoagulation in these patients but was stopped early after 880 patients had been enrolled because of slow recruitment.
“Results from this study failed to show superiority of early versus late DOAC treatment but they did suggest noninferiority, and they also found no increase in major bleeding complications, which is an added reassurance,” he commented.
Another trial looking at early versus late anticoagulation in these patients, OPTIMAS, is ongoing in the United Kingdom and is aiming to randomize 3,500 patients.
Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity
In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”
He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.
Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.
“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.
“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.
But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study suggests.
The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.
“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.
“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.
Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”
Dr. Fischer presented the results of the ELAN trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) in Munich. The trial was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
He explained that patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke who are found to have atrial fibrillation need to be started on anticoagulation to reduce the risk for a recurrent stroke. But there are no clear guidelines on when to start anticoagulation in these patients at present, with concerns that starting very early may increase the risk for hemorrhagic transformation and ICH.
Based on observations that patients with larger strokes have a higher risk for ICH in the early post-stroke period, some guidelines advise different times for starting anticoagulation for different stroke severities: 1 day for a transient ischemic attack, 3 days for a minor stroke, 6 days for a moderate stroke, and 12 days for a severe stroke – known as the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-day rule.
“But this is not based on evidence – just on expert opinion,” Dr. Fischer noted. “The ELAN trial was conducted to obtain more solid information on optimal timing for starting anticoagulation and whether we can safely start a DOAC earlier than these guidelines currently advise.”
For the trial, which was conducted in 15 countries, 2,013 patients with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have AFib were randomly selected to start DOAC treatment earlier or later.
The later-treatment strategy followed the current approach of starting treatment at day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke, whereas the earlier-treatment group started DOAC treatment within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke.
In terms of stroke severity, which was defined on imaging-based criteria, 37% of patients had a minor stroke, 40% had a moderate stroke, and 23% had a major stroke.
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization.
Results showed that this occurred in 2.9% in the early-treatment group and 4.1% in the later-treatment group (risk difference, –1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –2.84-0.47) by 30 days.
Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 1.4% in the early-treatment group and 2.5% in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.07). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in two participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days.
The rates of the outcomes increased only slightly more at 90 days than at 30 days, “findings that suggest there was not an excessive risk associated with early anticoagulation through that period,” the researchers report in the NEJM paper.
“Early treatment initiation can therefore be supported if indicated or if desired,” they conclude.
“The most important finding was that among 2,000 patients randomized, there was a very low rate of bleeding complications and no increase in any bleeding complication in the early DOAC group. This has been a major worry about starting anticoagulation early,” Dr. Fischer commented.
“These are very practical findings in that we can keep things simple,” Dr. Dawson added. “If the patient has a big stroke, anticoagulation with a DOAC can now be started at 6 days. For everyone else, we can start DOAC treatment as soon as possible without fear of causing harm. So, we can now confidently give patients with a minor or moderate stroke, as defined by imaging, a beneficial treatment as soon as we establish they are having an ischemic stroke and have AFib.”
Dr. Dawson pointed out that about 25% of patients with ischemic stroke are found to have AFib on admission ECG, and in another 4%-5%, AFib is found in the first 48 hours. “These are the patients we are targeting in this study.”
The researchers note that the trial did not have a statistical superiority or noninferiority design but rather aimed to estimate the treatment effects of early initiation versus later initiation of DOACs.
“This trial was slightly different in that we weren’t testing a strict statistical hypothesis because we didn’t have any data with which to formulate what sort of effect size to aim for, so we performed a qualitative trial to look at what the event rates were with the two approaches,” Dr. Fischer explained. “Our main findings are that ICH rates were not increased with early DOAC treatment and that ischemic event rates were numerically reduced, but because we didn’t have strict statistical limits, we can only say this is a high probability but not a certainty.”
Dr. Dawson added: “We can say from these results that there is a high level of probability that early DOAC treatment does not cause harm and a reasonable probability that it reduces risks of a recurrent stroke or other ischemic event.”
The researchers give an estimate of the effect size for the primary composite endpoint, which combines the major ischemic and bleeding events, ranging from a 2.8% lower risk to a 0.5% higher risk with early DOAC treatment.
“So, it is very likely that the composite endpoint would be lower,” Dr. Dawson said.
Dr. Fischer noted that a previous study (TIMING) tried to address the issue of earlier versus later anticoagulation in these patients but was stopped early after 880 patients had been enrolled because of slow recruitment.
“Results from this study failed to show superiority of early versus late DOAC treatment but they did suggest noninferiority, and they also found no increase in major bleeding complications, which is an added reassurance,” he commented.
Another trial looking at early versus late anticoagulation in these patients, OPTIMAS, is ongoing in the United Kingdom and is aiming to randomize 3,500 patients.
Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity
In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”
He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.
Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.
“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.
“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.
But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study suggests.
The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.
“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.
“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.
Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”
Dr. Fischer presented the results of the ELAN trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) in Munich. The trial was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
He explained that patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke who are found to have atrial fibrillation need to be started on anticoagulation to reduce the risk for a recurrent stroke. But there are no clear guidelines on when to start anticoagulation in these patients at present, with concerns that starting very early may increase the risk for hemorrhagic transformation and ICH.
Based on observations that patients with larger strokes have a higher risk for ICH in the early post-stroke period, some guidelines advise different times for starting anticoagulation for different stroke severities: 1 day for a transient ischemic attack, 3 days for a minor stroke, 6 days for a moderate stroke, and 12 days for a severe stroke – known as the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-day rule.
“But this is not based on evidence – just on expert opinion,” Dr. Fischer noted. “The ELAN trial was conducted to obtain more solid information on optimal timing for starting anticoagulation and whether we can safely start a DOAC earlier than these guidelines currently advise.”
For the trial, which was conducted in 15 countries, 2,013 patients with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have AFib were randomly selected to start DOAC treatment earlier or later.
The later-treatment strategy followed the current approach of starting treatment at day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke, whereas the earlier-treatment group started DOAC treatment within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke.
In terms of stroke severity, which was defined on imaging-based criteria, 37% of patients had a minor stroke, 40% had a moderate stroke, and 23% had a major stroke.
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization.
Results showed that this occurred in 2.9% in the early-treatment group and 4.1% in the later-treatment group (risk difference, –1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –2.84-0.47) by 30 days.
Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 1.4% in the early-treatment group and 2.5% in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.07). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in two participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days.
The rates of the outcomes increased only slightly more at 90 days than at 30 days, “findings that suggest there was not an excessive risk associated with early anticoagulation through that period,” the researchers report in the NEJM paper.
“Early treatment initiation can therefore be supported if indicated or if desired,” they conclude.
“The most important finding was that among 2,000 patients randomized, there was a very low rate of bleeding complications and no increase in any bleeding complication in the early DOAC group. This has been a major worry about starting anticoagulation early,” Dr. Fischer commented.
“These are very practical findings in that we can keep things simple,” Dr. Dawson added. “If the patient has a big stroke, anticoagulation with a DOAC can now be started at 6 days. For everyone else, we can start DOAC treatment as soon as possible without fear of causing harm. So, we can now confidently give patients with a minor or moderate stroke, as defined by imaging, a beneficial treatment as soon as we establish they are having an ischemic stroke and have AFib.”
Dr. Dawson pointed out that about 25% of patients with ischemic stroke are found to have AFib on admission ECG, and in another 4%-5%, AFib is found in the first 48 hours. “These are the patients we are targeting in this study.”
The researchers note that the trial did not have a statistical superiority or noninferiority design but rather aimed to estimate the treatment effects of early initiation versus later initiation of DOACs.
“This trial was slightly different in that we weren’t testing a strict statistical hypothesis because we didn’t have any data with which to formulate what sort of effect size to aim for, so we performed a qualitative trial to look at what the event rates were with the two approaches,” Dr. Fischer explained. “Our main findings are that ICH rates were not increased with early DOAC treatment and that ischemic event rates were numerically reduced, but because we didn’t have strict statistical limits, we can only say this is a high probability but not a certainty.”
Dr. Dawson added: “We can say from these results that there is a high level of probability that early DOAC treatment does not cause harm and a reasonable probability that it reduces risks of a recurrent stroke or other ischemic event.”
The researchers give an estimate of the effect size for the primary composite endpoint, which combines the major ischemic and bleeding events, ranging from a 2.8% lower risk to a 0.5% higher risk with early DOAC treatment.
“So, it is very likely that the composite endpoint would be lower,” Dr. Dawson said.
Dr. Fischer noted that a previous study (TIMING) tried to address the issue of earlier versus later anticoagulation in these patients but was stopped early after 880 patients had been enrolled because of slow recruitment.
“Results from this study failed to show superiority of early versus late DOAC treatment but they did suggest noninferiority, and they also found no increase in major bleeding complications, which is an added reassurance,” he commented.
Another trial looking at early versus late anticoagulation in these patients, OPTIMAS, is ongoing in the United Kingdom and is aiming to randomize 3,500 patients.
Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity
In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).
“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”
He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.
Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.
“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.
“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.
But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2023
First in utero cerebrovascular surgery success
The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications.
The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.
Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.
“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.
Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
Vein of Galen malformation
Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.
“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.
The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.
The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.
Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.
“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained.
Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.
“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.
The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques.
But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.
The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.
The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.
This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.
“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.
Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”
The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.
“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.
It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.
Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.
“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.
If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
Pioneering work
Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”
Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.
But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”
The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications.
The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.
Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.
“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.
Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
Vein of Galen malformation
Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.
“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.
The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.
The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.
Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.
“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained.
Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.
“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.
The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques.
But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.
The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.
The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.
This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.
“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.
Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”
The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.
“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.
It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.
Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.
“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.
If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
Pioneering work
Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”
Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.
But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”
The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications.
The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.
Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.
“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.
Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
Vein of Galen malformation
Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.
“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.
The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.
The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.
Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.
“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained.
Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.
“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.
The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques.
But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.
The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.
The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.
This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.
“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.
Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”
The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.
“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.
It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.
Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.
“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.
If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
Pioneering work
Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”
Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.
But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”
The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM STROKE