Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34097080›Full record

ArticleClinical neuroradiology2021

Late Thrombectomy in Clinical Practice : Retrospective Application of DAWN/DEFUSE3 Criteria within the German Stroke Registry.

Moriz Herzberg, Korbinian Scherling, Robert Stahl, Steffen Tiedt, Frank A Wollenweber, Clemens Küpper, Katharina Feil, Robert Forbrig, Maximilian Patzig, Lars Kellert and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Moriz HerzbergInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Herzberg_M1@ukw.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8799-9333
Korbinian ScherlingInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Robert StahlInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Steffen TiedtInstitute for Stroke and Dementia Research, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Frank A WollenweberDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Clemens KüpperDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Katharina FeilDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Robert ForbrigInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Maximilian PatzigInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Lars KellertDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Wolfgang G KunzDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Paul ReidlerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hanna ZimmermannInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Thomas LiebigInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Marianne DieterichDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Franziska DornInstitute of Neuroradiology, Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
GSR investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeTo provide real-world data on outcome and procedural factors of late thrombectomy patients.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients from the multicenter German Stroke Registry. The primary endpoint was clinical outcome on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 3 months. Trial-eligible patients and the subgroups were compared to the ineligible group. Secondary analyses included multivariate logistic regression to identify predictors of good outcome (mRS ≤ 2).

resultsOf 1917 patients who underwent thrombectomy, 208 (11%) were treated within a time window ≥ 6-24 h and met the baseline trial criteria. Of these, 27 patients (13%) were eligible for DAWN and 39 (19%) for DEFUSE3 and 156 patients were not eligible for DAWN or DEFUSE3 (75%), mainly because there was no perfusion imaging (62%; n = 129). Good outcome was not significantly higher in trial-ineligible (27%) than in trial-eligible (20%) patients (p = 0.343). Patients with large trial-ineligible CT perfusion imaging (CTP) lesions had significantly more hemorrhagic complications (33%) as well as unfavorable outcomes.

conclusionIn clinical practice, the high number of patients with a good clinical outcome after endovascular therapy ≥ 6-24 h as in DAWN/DEFUSE3 could not be achieved. Similar outcomes are seen in patients selected for EVT ≥ 6 h based on factors other than CTP. Patients triaged without CTP showed trends for shorter arrival to reperfusion times and higher rates of independence.

Indexed as

Brain IschemiaStrokeHumansRegistriesRetrospective StudiesThrombectomyTreatment OutcomeEndovascular therapyLate thrombectomyOutcomeStroke

Identifiers

PMID34097080
PMCPMC8463374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.