부산대학교 도서관

BackgroundFollow-up infarct volume (FIV) is used as surrogate for treatment efficiency in mechanical thrombectomy (MT). However, previous works suggest that MT-related FIV reduction has only limited association with outcome comparing MT independently of recanalization success versus medical care. It remains unclear to what extent the relationship between successful recanalization versus persistent occlusion and functional outcome is explained by FIV reduction.ObjectiveTo determine whether FIV mediates the relationship between successful recanalization and functional outcome.MethodsAll patients from our institution enrolled in the German Stroke Registry (May 2015–December 2019) with anterior circulation stroke; availability of the relevant clinical data, and follow-up-CT were analyzed. The effect of FIV reduction on functional outcome (90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤2) after successful recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction ≥2b) was quantified using mediation analysis.Results429 patients were included, of whom, 309 (72 %) had successful recanalization and 127 (39%) had good functional outcome. Good outcome was associated with age (OR=0.89, P<0.001), pre-stroke mRS score (OR=0.38, P<0.001), FIV (OR=0.98, P<0.001), hypertension (OR=2.08, P<0.05), and successful recanalization (OR=3.57, P<0.01). Using linear regression in the mediator pathway, FIV was associated with Alberta Stroke program Early CT Score (coefficient (Co)=−26.13, P<0.001), admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (Co=3.69, P<0.001), age (Co=−1.18, P<0.05), and successful recanalization (Co=−85.22, P<0.001). Successful recanalization increased the probability of good outcome by 23 percentage points (pp) (95% CI 16pp to 29pp). 56% (95% CI 38% to 78%) of the improvement in good outcome was explained by FIV reduction.Conclusion56% (95% CI 38% to 78%) of outcome improvement after successful recanalization was explained by FIV reduction. Results corroborate pathophysiological assumptions and confirm the value of FIV as an imaging endpoint in clinical trials. 44% (95% CI 22% to 62%) of the improvement in outcome was not explained by FIV reduction and reflects the remaining mismatch between radiological and clinical outcome measures.