Selection of patients for intra-arterial treatment for acute ischaemic stroke: development and validation of a clinical decision tool in two randomised trials

Esmee Venema, Maxim J H L Mulder, Bob Roozenbeek, Joseph P Broderick, Sharon D Yeatts, Pooja Khatri, Olvert A Berkhemer, Bart J Emmer, Yvo B W E M Roos, Charles B L M Majoie, Robert J van Oostenbrugge, Wim H van Zwam, Aad van der Lugt, Ewout W Steyerberg, Diederik W J Dippel, Hester F Lingsma, Esmee Venema, Maxim J H L Mulder, Bob Roozenbeek, Joseph P Broderick, Sharon D Yeatts, Pooja Khatri, Olvert A Berkhemer, Bart J Emmer, Yvo B W E M Roos, Charles B L M Majoie, Robert J van Oostenbrugge, Wim H van Zwam, Aad van der Lugt, Ewout W Steyerberg, Diederik W J Dippel, Hester F Lingsma

Abstract

Objective To improve the selection of patients with acute ischaemic stroke for intra-arterial treatment using a clinical decision tool to predict individual treatment benefit.Design Multivariable regression modelling with data from two randomised controlled clinical trials.Setting 16 hospitals in the Netherlands (derivation cohort) and 58 hospitals in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe (validation cohort).Participants 500 patients from the Multicenter Randomised Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in the Netherlands trial (derivation cohort) and 260 patients with intracranial occlusion from the Interventional Management of Stroke III trial (validation cohort).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days after stroke. We constructed an ordinal logistic regression model to predict outcome and treatment benefit, defined as the difference between the predicted probability of good functional outcome (mRS score 0-2) with and without intra-arterial treatment.Results 11 baseline clinical and radiological characteristics were included in the model. The externally validated C statistic was 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.73) for the ordinal model and 0.73 (0.67 to 0.79) for the prediction of good functional outcome, indicating moderate discriminative ability. The mean predicted treatment benefit varied between patients in the combined derivation and validation cohort from -2.3% to 24.3%. There was benefit of intra-arterial treatment predicted for some individual patients from groups in which no treatment effect was found in previous subgroup analyses, such as those with no or poor collaterals.Conclusion The proposed clinical decision tool combines multiple baseline clinical and radiological characteristics and shows large variations in treatment benefit between patients. The tool is clinically useful as it aids in distinguishing between individual patients who may experience benefit from intra-arterial treatment for acute ischaemic stroke and those who will not.Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT00359424 (IMS III) and isrctn.com ISRCTN10888758 (MR CLEAN).

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. JPB received study medication for intra-arterial tissue type plasminogen activator from Genentech and catheters were supplied by EKOS Corporation, Concentric Medical, and Cordis. His research is funded by the Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine. He is remunerated by Genentech for his role on the Steering Committee for A Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Activase (Alteplase) in Patients With Mild Stroke (PRISMS) trial. SDY is remunerated by Genentech for her statistical role in the PRISMS trial. PK is remunerated by Genentech for her role as lead principal investigator of the PRISMS trial and by Penumbra for her role as neurology principal investigator of the Assess the Penumbra System in the Treatment of Acute Stroke trial. She has also received royalties from UpToDate and consulted for Grand Rounds, St Jude Medical, and Biogen. BJE is remunerated for his role as CE mark reviewer by DEKRA and by Novartis for educational lectures. Erasmus MC received funds from Stryker for consultations by DWJD and AL and for training courses by BJE, and from Bracco Imaging for consultations by DWJD. The Academic Medical Centre received funds from Stryker for consultations by CBLMM and YBWEMR. Maastricht University Medical Centre received funds from Stryker and Codman for consultations by WHZ.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5418887/bin/vene036408.f1.jpg
Fig 1 Univariable interaction effects in derivation cohort (n=500). Interaction with treatment is expressed as log odds for good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) with and without intra-arterial treatment on the y axis. Variables on x axis are expressed continuously (time to groin puncture) or categorically (previous stroke, atrial fibrillation, and collateral score)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5418887/bin/vene036408.f2.jpg
Fig 2 Calibration plot for predicted good functional outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2, in validation cohort (n=260). The calibration slope reflects the strength of predictors. The calibration intercept reflects the calibration in the large, indicating whether predicted probabilities are systematically too low or too high. The overall observed proportion of patients with mRS score 0-2 in the validation cohort was higher as to be expected using our model. The linear bar chart shows the distribution of patients with (=1) or without (=0) an observed outcome of mRS score 0-2. Discrimination between low and high likelihood of good functional outcome was moderate (C statistic 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.79)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5418887/bin/vene036408.f3.jpg
Fig 3 (A) Predicted probabilities of good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2) for all individual patients in combined derivation and validation cohort (n=760). Each dot represents one individual patient, with the probability of good functional outcome (mRS score 0-2) without intra-arterial treatment (IAT) expressed on x axis, and probability for good functional outcome with IAT on y axis. Above the diagonal line the predicted probability of good functional outcome with IAT is higher than that without IAT. The farther above this line, the larger the predicted effect of treatment. (B) Patients highlighted with no or poor collaterals (score 0-1). (C) Patients highlighted with low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS, score 0-5)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5418887/bin/vene036408.f4.jpg
Fig 4 A stylised representation of the clinical decision tool. Baseline characteristics and predicted probabilities of good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2) for two examples (see introduction). ASPECT=Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score; IAT=intra-arterial treatment; NIHSS=National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; ICA=internal carotid artery; CTA=computed tomography angiography

References

    1. Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006;367:1747-57. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68770-9 .
    1. van der Worp HB, van Gijn J. Clinical practice. Acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2007;357:572-9. 10.1056/NEJMcp072057 .
    1. Smith WS, Lev MH, English JD, et al. Significance of large vessel intracranial occlusion causing acute ischemic stroke and TIA. Stroke 2009;40:3834-40. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.561787 .
    1. Lima FO, Furie KL, Silva GS, et al. Prognosis of untreated strokes due to anterior circulation proximal intracranial arterial occlusions detected by use of computed tomography angiography. JAMA Neurol 2014;71:151-7. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.5007 .
    1. Berkhemer OA, Fransen PS, Beumer D, et al. MR CLEAN Investigators. A randomized trial of intraarterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2015;372:11-20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1411587 .
    1. Campbell BC, Mitchell PJ, Kleinig TJ, et al. EXTEND-IA Investigators. Endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke with perfusion-imaging selection. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1009-18. 10.1056/NEJMoa1414792 .
    1. Goyal M, Demchuk AM, Menon BK, et al. ESCAPE Trial Investigators. Randomized assessment of rapid endovascular treatment of ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1019-30. 10.1056/NEJMoa1414905 .
    1. Jovin TG, Chamorro A, Cobo E, et al. REVASCAT Trial Investigators. Thrombectomy within 8 hours after symptom onset in ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2296-306. 10.1056/NEJMoa1503780 .
    1. Saver JL, Goyal M, Bonafe A, et al. SWIFT PRIME Investigators. Stent-retriever thrombectomy after intravenous t-PA vs. t-PA alone in stroke. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2285-95. 10.1056/NEJMoa1415061 .
    1. Bracard S, Ducrocq X, Mas JL, et al. THRACE investigators. Mechanical thrombectomy after intravenous alteplase versus alteplase alone after stroke (THRACE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2016;15:1138-47. 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30177-6 .
    1. Muir KW, Ford GA, Messow CM, et al. PISTE Investigators. Endovascular therapy for acute ischaemic stroke: the Pragmatic Ischaemic Stroke Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) randomised, controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017;88:38-44. 10.1136/jnnp-2016-314117 .
    1. Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, et al. HERMES collaborators. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet 2016;387:1723-31. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00163-X .
    1. Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials 2010;11:85 10.1186/1745-6215-11-85 .
    1. Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365:176-86. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17709-5 .
    1. Berkhemer OA, Jansen IG, Beumer D, et al. MR CLEAN Investigators. Collateral Status on Baseline Computed Tomographic Angiography and Intra-Arterial Treatment Effect in Patients With Proximal Anterior Circulation Stroke. Stroke 2016;47:768-76..
    1. Barber PA, Demchuk AM, Zhang J, Buchan AM. Validity and reliability of a quantitative computed tomography score in predicting outcome of hyperacute stroke before thrombolytic therapy. ASPECTS Study Group. Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score. Lancet 2000;355:1670-4..
    1. Tan IYL, Demchuk AM, Hopyan J, et al. CT angiography clot burden score and collateral score: correlation with clinical and radiologic outcomes in acute middle cerebral artery infarct. Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:525-31. 10.3174/ajnr.A1408 .
    1. Fransen PS, Beumer D, Berkhemer OA, et al. MR CLEAN Investigators. MR CLEAN, a multicenter randomized clinical trial of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in the Netherlands: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:343 10.1186/1745-6215-15-343 .
    1. Mulder MJHL, Venema E, Roozenbeek B, et al. Towards personalised intra-arterial treatment of patients with acute ischaemic stroke: a study protocol for development and validation of a clinical decision aid. BMJ Open 2017;7:e013699..
    1. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604-7. 10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604 .
    1. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis.Springer-Verlag, 2001. 10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1.
    1. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating.Springer, 2009. 10.1007/978-0-387-77244-8.
    1. Broderick JP, Palesch YY, Demchuk AM, et al. Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III Investigators. Endovascular therapy after intravenous t-PA versus t-PA alone for stroke. N Engl J Med 2013;368:893-903. 10.1056/NEJMoa1214300 .
    1. Khatri P, Hill MD, Palesch YY, et al. Interventional Management of Stroke III Investigators. Methodology of the Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial. Int J Stroke 2008;3:130-7. 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2008.00151.x .
    1. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010;21:128-38. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2 .
    1. Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1925-31. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207 .
    1. Hallevi H, Barreto AD, Liebeskind DS, et al. UCLA Intra-Arterial Therapy Investigators. Identifying patients at high risk for poor outcome after intra-arterial therapy for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2009;40:1780-5. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.535146 .
    1. Flint AC, Cullen SP, Faigeles BS, Rao VA. Predicting long-term outcome after endovascular stroke treatment: the totaled health risks in vascular events score. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1192-6. 10.3174/ajnr.A2050 .
    1. Scott SC, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE. Statistical assessment of ordinal outcomes in comparative studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:45-55. 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00312-5 .
    1. Fransen PS, Berkhemer OA, Lingsma HF, et al. Time to Reperfusion and Treatment Effect for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol 2015;73:1-7..
    1. Goyal M, Jadhav AP, Bonafe A, et al. SWIFT PRIME investigators. Analysis of Workflow and Time to Treatment and the Effects on Outcome in Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: Results from the SWIFT PRIME Randomized Controlled Trial. Radiology 2016;279:888-97. 10.1148/radiol.2016160204 .
    1. Menon BK, Sajobi TT, Zhang Y, et al. Analysis of Workflow and Time to Treatment on Thrombectomy Outcome in the Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Proximal Occlusion Ischemic Stroke (ESCAPE) Randomized, Controlled Trial. Circulation 2016;133:2279-86. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019983 .
    1. Ribo M, Molina CA, Cobo E, et al. REVASCAT Trial Investigators. Association Between Time to Reperfusion and Outcome Is Primarily Driven by the Time From Imaging to Reperfusion. Stroke 2016;47:999-1004. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011721 .
    1. Saver JL, Goyal M, van der Lugt A, et al. HERMES Collaborators. Time to treatment with endovascular thrombectomy and outcomes from ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2016;316:1279-88..
    1. Broderick JP, Berkhemer OA, Palesch YY, et al. IMS III Investigators MR CLEAN Investigators. Endovascular Therapy Is Effective and Safe for Patients With Severe Ischemic Stroke: Pooled Analysis of Interventional Management of Stroke III and Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands Data. Stroke 2015;46:3416-22..
    1. Demchuk AM, Goyal M, Yeatts SD, et al. IMS III Investigators. Recanalization and clinical outcome of occlusion sites at baseline CT angiography in the Interventional Management of Stroke III trial. Radiology 2014;273:202-10. 10.1148/radiol.14132649 .
    1. Lip GY, Frison L, Halperin JL, Lane DA. Comparative validation of a novel risk score for predicting bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: the HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly) score. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:173-80. 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.024 .
    1. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest 2010;137:263-72. 10.1378/chest.09-1584 .
    1. Lingsma HF, Roozenbeek B, Steyerberg EW, Murray GD, Maas AI. Early prognosis in traumatic brain injury: from prophecies to predictions. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:543-54. 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70065-X .
    1. Kent DM, Nelson J, Dahabreh IJ, Rothwell PM, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Risk and treatment effect heterogeneity: re-analysis of individual participant data from 32 large clinical trials[published online ahead of print July 3, 2016] Int J Epidemiol 2016;dyw118 10.1093/ije/dyw118 .

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera