Dataset Information

EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (EVA-TRISP) registry: basis and methodology of a pan-European prospective ischaemic stroke revascularisation treatment registry.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration was a concerted effort initiated in 2010 with the purpose to address relevant research questions about the effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). The collaboration also aims to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) and hence the name of the collaboration was changed from TRISP to EVA-TRISP. The methodology of the former TRISP registry for patients treated with IVT has already been published. This paper focuses on describing the EVT part of the registry.

Participants

All centres committed to collecting predefined variables on consecutive patients prospectively. We aim for accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt local databases to investigate novel research questions. Herein, we introduce the methodology of a recently constructed academic investigator-initiated open collaboration EVT registry built as an extension of an existing IVT registry in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS).

Findings to date

Currently, the EVA-TRISP network includes 20 stroke centres with considerable expertise in EVT and maintenance of high-quality hospital-based registries. Following several successful randomised controlled trials (RCTs), many important clinical questions remain unanswered in the (EVT) field and some of them will unlikely be investigated in future RCTs. Prospective registries with high-quality data on EVT-treated patients may help answering some of these unanswered issues, especially on safety and efficacy of EVT in specific patient subgroups.

Future plans

This collaborative effort aims at addressing clinically important questions on safety and efficacy of EVT in conditions not covered by RCTs. The TRISP registry generated substantial novel data supporting stroke physicians in their daily decision making considering IVT candidate patients. While providing observational data on EVT in daily clinical practice, our future findings may likewise be hypothesis generating for future research as well as for quality improvement (on EVT). The collaboration welcomes participation of further centres willing to fulfill the commitment and the outlined requirements.

SUBMITTER: Nordanstig A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8354282 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine outcomes and safety of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke, due to proximal intracranial vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, in routine clinical practice.DesignOngoing, prospective, observational cohort study.Setting16 centres that perform endovascular treatment in the Netherlands.Participants1488 patients included in the Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry who had received endovascular treatment, including stent retriever thrombectomy, aspiration, and all alternative methods for acute ischaemic stroke within 6.5 hours from onset of symptoms between March 2014 and June 2016.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death) at 90 days after the onset of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were excellent functional outcome (mRS score 0-1), good functional outcome (mRS score 0-2), and favourable functional outcome (mRS score 0-3) at 90 days; score on the extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale at the end of the intervention procedure; National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 24-48 hours after intervention; and complications that occurred during intervention, hospital admission, or three months' follow up period. Outcomes and safety variables in the MR CLEAN Registry were compared with the MR CLEAN trial intervention and control arms.ResultsA statistically significant shift was observed towards better functional outcome in patients in the MR CLEAN Registry compared with the MR CLEAN trial intervention arm (adjusted common odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.67) and the MR CLEAN trial control arm (1.85, 1.46 to 2.34). The reperfusion rate, with successful reperfusion defined as a score of 2B-3 on the extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score, was 58.7%, the same as for patients in the MR CLEAN trial. Duration from onset of stroke to start of endovascular treatment and from onset of stroke to successful reperfusion or last contrast bolus was one hour shorter for patients in the MR CLEAN Registry. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 5.8% of patients in the MR CLEAN Registry compared with 7.7% in the MR CLEAN trial intervention arm and 6.4% in the MR CLEAN trial control arm.ConclusionIn routine clinical practice, endovascular treatment for patients with acute ischaemic stroke is at least as effective and safe as in the setting of a randomised controlled trial.

Project description:IntroductionIn patients with stroke attributable to cervical artery dissection, we compared endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis regarding three-month outcome, recanalisation and complications.Materials and methodsIn a multicentre intravenous thrombolysis/endovascular therapy-register-based cohort study, all consecutive cervical artery dissection patients with intracranial artery occlusion treated within 6 h were eligible for analysis. Endovascular therapy patients (with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis) were compared to intravenous thrombolysis patients regarding (i) excellent three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1), (ii) symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (iii) recanalisation of the occluded intracranial artery and (iv) death. Upon a systematic literature review, we performed a meta-analysis comparing endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients regarding three-month outcome using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model.ResultsAmong 62 cervical artery dissection patients (median age 48.8 years), 24 received intravenous thrombolysis and 38 received endovascular therapy. Excellent three-month outcome occurred in 23.7% endovascular therapy and 20.8% with intravenous thrombolysis patients. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred solely among endovascular therapy patients (5/38 patients, 13.2%) while four (80%) of these patients had bridging therapy; 6/38 endovascular therapy and 0/24 intravenous thrombolysis patients died. Four of these 6 endovascular therapy patients had bridging therapy. Recanalisation was achieved in 84.2% endovascular therapy patients and 66.7% intravenous thrombolysis patients (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval [0.9-11.38]). Sensitivity analyses in a subgroup treated within 4.5 h revealed a higher recanalisation rate among endovascular therapy patients (odds ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval [1.00-14.95]), but no change in the key clinical findings. In a meta-analysis across eight studies (n = 212 patients), cervical artery dissection patients (110 intravenous thrombolysis and 102 endovascular therapy) showed identical odds for favourable outcome (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.38-2.44]) among endovascular therapy patients and intravenous thrombolysis patients.Discussion and conclusionIn this cohort study, there was no clear signal of superiority of endovascular therapy over intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients, which - given the limitation of our sample size - does not prove that endovascular therapy in these patients cannot be superior in future studies. The observation that symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and deaths in the endovascular therapy group occurred predominantly in bridging patients requires further investigation.