Infarct Evolution in Patients with Anterior Circulation Large-Vessel Occlusion Randomized to IV Alteplase and Endovascular Treatment versus Endovascular Treatment Alone

MR CLEAN-NO IV Investigators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Infarct evolution after endovascular treatment varies widely among patients with stroke and may be affected by baseline characteristics and procedural outcomes. Moreover, IV alteplase and endovascular treatment may influence the relationship of these factors to infarct evolution. We aimed to assess whether the infarct evolution between baseline and follow-up imaging was different for patients who received IVT and EVT versus EVT alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included patients from the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN)-NO IV trial with baseline CTP and follow-up imaging. Follow-up infarct volume was segmented on 24-hour or 1-week follow-up DWI or NCCT. Infarct evolution was defined as the follow-up lesion volume: CTP core volume. Substantial infarct growth was defined as an increase in follow-up infarct volume of >10 mL. We assessed whether infarct evolution was different for patients with IV alteplase and endovascular treatment versus endovascular treatment alone and evaluated the association of baseline characteristics and procedural outcomes with infarct evolution using multivariable regression. RESULTS: From 228 patients with CTP results available, 145 patients had follow-up imaging and were included in our analysis. For patients with IV alteplase and endovascular treatment versus endovascular treatment alone, the baseline median CTP core volume was 17 (interquartile range = 4-35) mL versus 11 (interquartile range = 6-24) mL. The median follow-up infarct volume was 13 (interquartile range, 4-48) mL versus 17 (interquartile range = 4-50) mL. Collateral status and occlusion location were negatively associated with substantial infarct growth in patients with and without IV alteplase before endovascular treatment. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference in infarct evolution was found in directly admitted patients who received IV alteplase and endovascular treatment within 4.5 hours of symptom onset versus patients who underwent endovascular treatment alone. Collateral status and occlusion location may be useful predictors of infarct evolution prognosis in patients eligible for IV alteplase who underwent endovascular treatment.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)434-440
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2023

Cite this