Background Investigations into the effect of previous stroke on thrombectomy outcomes have yielded conflicting results, and are limited by small sample sizes. We present the results of a large single center retrospective study aimed at investigating the effect of chronic stroke laterality on thrombectomy outcomes.
Methods A prospectively maintained database was queried for all thrombectomy cases conducted between December 2014 and January 2020, and patient imaging was prospectively reviewed for evidence of prior supratentorial infarction. Procedural, clinical, and demographic characteristics were recorded, and good clinical outcome was defined as a 90 day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of <2 or mRS score unchanged if baseline was >2.
Results The final analysis cohort included 555 patients, 79 of whom were found to have radiographic evidence of prior chronic infarcts. On univariate analysis, patients with any chronic supratentorial infarct achieved a lower rate of good clinical outcome than patients with no chronic infarct (22.8% vs 41.0%, p=0.0021). With regard to subgroups, this difference remained only in patients with ipsilateral (14.3%, p=0.0018) and bilateral (11.8%, p=0.015) lesions. Patients with chronic contralateral supratentorial infarcts were no less likely to achieve good outcomes (40.7%, p=0.98). After multivariate regression controlling for age, sex, and baseline mRS, chronic ipsilateral infarcts (OR 0.22, CI 0.07 to 0.67) and chronic bilateral infarcts (OR 0.19, CI 0.04 to 0.85) were the only independent predictors of poor outcome in endovascular thrombectomy patients.
Conclusions In this single center retrospective study of thrombectomy patients with chronic supratentorial infarcts, the laterality of the previous stroke significantly affected the likelihood of good clinical outcomes.
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 RDL is responisble for the overall content as guarantor. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work: RDL and DVB. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the work: RDL, DVB, and BSG. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: all authors. Final approval of the version to be published: all authors. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: all authors.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests JTF and RDL are affiliated with the JNIS editorial board.
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.