Background Futile recanalization—when patients have a successful recanalization but fail to achieve a satisfactory functional outcome— is a common phenomenon of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The present study aimed to identify the predictors of futile recanalization in AIS patients who received endovascular treatment.
Methods This is a post-hoc analysis of the DIRECT-MT trial. Demographics, clinical characteristics, acute stroke workflow interval times, biochemical parameters, and imaging characteristics were compared between futile and meaningful recanalization groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify the predictors of futile recanalization.
Results Futile recanalization was observed in 277 patients. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age (p<0.001), higher baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p=0.032), incomplete reperfusion defined by extended Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (eTICI) grades (p=0.020), and larger final infarct volume (FIV) (p<0.001) were independent predictors of futile recanalization.
Conclusions Old age, high baseline SBP, incomplete reperfusion defined by eTICI, and large FIV were independent predictors of futile recanalization after endovascular therapy for AIS.
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. All free text entered below will be published.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors TFZ, TXL, QL, ZSL, LFZ, YCL, YKH and MYW designed the study, PFY, YXZ, ZFL, JML, YWZ,TYY, WHC and SCW conducted the trial and collected information, TFZ drafted the manuscript, all authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version.
Funding Supported by a grant (GN-2017R0001) from the Stroke Prevention Project of the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China and by the Wu Jieping Medical Foundation; the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFE0103600), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81720108021,), Scientific and Technological Research Project of Henan Province (182102310162).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.