Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from porcine brain, which has potential neuroprotective properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and last updated in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like agents for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, and LILACS in May 2022 and a number of Russian databases in June 2022. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like agents started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any length of time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria to the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1773 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. In this update we added one RCT of Cerebrolysin-like agent Cortexin, which contributed 272 participants. We used the same approach for risk of bias assessment that was re-evaluated for the previous update: we added consideration of the public availability of study protocols and reported outcomes to the selective outcome reporting judgement, through identification, examination, and evaluation of study protocols. For the Cerebrolysin studies, we judged the risk of bias for selective outcome reporting to be unclear across all studies; for blinding of participants and personnel to be low in three studies and unclear in the remaining four; and for blinding of outcome assessors to be low in three studies and unclear in four studies. We judged the risk of bias for generation of allocation sequence to be low in one study and unclear in the remaining six studies; for allocation concealment to be low in one study and unclear in six studies; and for incomplete outcome data to be low in three studies and high in the remaining four studies. The manufacturer of Cerebrolysin supported three multicentre studies, either totally, or by providing Cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians. We judged two studies to be at high risk of other bias and the remaining five studies to be at unclear risk of other bias. We judged the study of Cortexin to be at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and at unclear risk of bias for all other domains. All-cause death: Cerebrolysin or Cortexin probably result in little to no difference in all-cause death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.41; 6 trials, 1689 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on poor functional outcome, defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period, early death (within two weeks of stroke onset), quality of life, or time to restoration of capacity for work. Only one study clearly reported on the cause of death: cerebral infarct (four in the Cerebrolysin and two in the placebo group), heart failure (two in the Cerebrolysin and one in the placebo group), pulmonary embolism (two in the placebo group), and pneumonia (one in the placebo group). Non-death attrition (secondary outcome): Cerebrolysin or similar peptide mixtures may result in little to no difference in non-death attrition, but the evidence is very uncertain, with a considerable level of heterogeneity (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.39; 6 trials, 1689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events (SAEs): Cerebrolysin probably results in little to no difference in the total number of people with SAEs (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.66; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This comprised fatal SAEs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and an increase in the total number of people with non-fatal SAEs (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.23; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of dosing schedule 30 mL for 10 days (cumulative dose 300 mL), the increase was more prominent (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.69; 2 trials, 1189 participants). Total number of people with adverse events: Cerebrolysin or similar peptide mixtures may result in little to no difference in the total number of people with adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14; 4 trials, 1607 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like peptide mixtures derived from cattle brain probably have no beneficial effect on preventing all-cause death in acute ischaemic stroke. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that Cerebrolysin probably has no beneficial effect on the total number of people with serious adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence also indicates a potential increase in non-fatal serious adverse events with Cerebrolysin use.

Different types of percutaneous endovascular interventions for acute ischemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is the abrupt reduction of blood flow to a certain area of the brain which causes neurologic dysfunction. Different types of percutaneous arterial endovascular interventions have been developed, but as yet there is no consensus on the optimal therapy for people with AIS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of different types of percutaneous arterial endovascular interventions for treating people with AIS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 4 of 12, 2022), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 May 2022), Embase (1947 to 15 May 2022), Science Citation Index Web of Science (1900 to 15 May 2022), Scopus (1960 to 15 May 2022), and China Biological Medicine Database (CBM; 1978 to 16 May 2022). We also searched the ClinicalTrials.gov trials register and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 16 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one percutaneous arterial endovascular intervention with another in treating adult patients who have a clinical diagnosis of AIS due to large vessel occlusion and confirmed by imaging evidence, including thrombo-aspiration, stent-retrieval thrombectomy, aspiration-retriever combined technique, and thrombus mechanical fragmentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the literature searches, identified eligible trials, and extracted data. A third review author participated in discussions to reach consensus decisions when any disputes occurred. We assessed risk of bias and applied the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was rate of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 0 to 2 at three months. Secondary outcomes included the rate of modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) of 2b to 3 postprocedure, all-cause mortality within three months, rate of intracranial hemorrhage on imaging at 24 hours, rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours, and rate of procedure-related adverse events within three months.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were eligible. The current meta-analysis included two trials with 651 participants comparing thrombo-aspiration with stent-retrieval thrombectomy. We judged the quality of evidence to be high in both trials according to Cochrane's risk of bias tool RoB 2. There were no significant differences between thrombo-aspiration and stent-retrieval thrombectomy in rate of mRS of 0 to 2 at three months (risk ratio [RR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.13; P = 0.68; 633 participants; 2 RCTs); rate of mTICI of 2b to 3 postprocedure (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; P = 0.77; 650 participants; 2 RCTs); all-cause mortality within three months (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.37; P = 0.95; 633 participants; 2 RCTs); rate of intracranial hemorrhage on imaging at 24 hours (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; P = 0.73; 645 participants; 2 RCTs); rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.68; P = 0.75; 645 participants; 2 RCTs); and rate of procedure-related adverse events within three months (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; P = 0.90; 651 participants; 2 RCTs). Another two included studies reported no differences for the comparisons of combined therapy versus stent-retrieval thrombectomy or thrombo-aspiration. One RCT is ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review did not establish any difference in safety and effectiveness between the thrombo-aspiration approach and stent-retrieval thrombectomy for treating people with AIS. Furthermore, the combined group did not show any obvious advantage over either intervention applied alone.

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment

BACKGROUND

The use of mechanical thrombectomy to restore intracranial blood flow after proximal large artery occlusion by a thrombus has increased over time and led to better outcomes than intravenous thrombolytic therapy alone. Currently, the type of anaesthetic technique during mechanical thrombectomy is under debate as having a relevant impact on neurological outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of anaesthesia for endovascular interventions in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Register of Trials on 5 July 2022, and CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and seven other databases on 21 March 2022. We performed searches of reference lists of included trials, grey literature sources, and other systematic reviews.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with a parallel design that compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia, conscious sedation anaesthesia, or monitored care anaesthesia for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischaemic stroke. We also included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, studies without a comparator group, and studies with a retrospective design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of the stroke symptoms to 90 days after the start of the intervention. The main outcomes were functional outcome, neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation, adverse events, and quality of life. All included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 days) time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials with 982 participants, which investigated the type of anaesthesia for endovascular treatment in large vessel occlusion in the intracranial circulation. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of stroke symptoms to 90 days after the procedure. Therefore, all included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 up to 90 days) time points. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia(early) We are uncertain about the effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to 0.31; P = 1.0; 1 study, 90 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion (MD 2.91 minutes, 95% CI -5.11 to 10.92; P = 0.48; I² = 48%; 5 studies, 498 participants; very low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia may lead to no difference in neurological impairment up to 48 hours after the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.59; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 982 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in stroke-related mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 330 participants; low-certainty evidence), all intracranial haemorrhages (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29; P = 0.63; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 693 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to non-general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; P = 0.02; I² = 71%; 2 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I² = 29%; 7 studies, 982 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no available data for quality of life. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia (long-term) There is no difference in general anaesthesia compared to non-general anaesthesia for dichotomous and continuous functional outcomes (dichotomous: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.58; P = 0.16; I² = 29%; 4 studies, 625 participants; low-certainty evidence; continuous: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.06; P = 0.17; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 978 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia showed no changes in stroke-related mortality compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; P = 0.44; I² = 12%; 6 studies, 843 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no available data for neurological impairment, all intracranial haemorrhages, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion, adverse events (haemodynamic instability), or quality of life. Ongoing studies We identified eight ongoing studies. Five studies compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia, one study compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia plus local anaesthesia, and two studies compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia. Of these studies, seven plan to report data on functional outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale, five studies on neurological impairment, six studies on stroke-related mortality, two studies on all intracranial haemorrhage, five studies on target artery revascularisation status, four studies on time to revascularisation, and four studies on adverse events. One ongoing study plans to report data on quality of life. One study did not plan to report any outcome of interest for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In early outcomes, general anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia with moderate-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage and haemodynamic instability adverse events between groups with low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain whether general anaesthesia improves functional outcomes and time to revascularisation because the certainty of the evidence is very low. However, regarding long-term outcomes, general anaesthesia makes no difference to functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia did not change stroke-related mortality when compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. There were no reported data for other outcomes. In view of the limited evidence of effect, more randomised controlled trials with a large number of participants and good protocol design with a low risk of bias should be performed to reduce our uncertainty and to aid decision-making in the choice of anaesthesia.

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from porcine brain that has potential neuroprotective properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of Cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, LILACS, OpenGrey, and a number of Russian databases in October 2019. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Cerebrolysin, started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any length of time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria to the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1601 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. In this update we re-evaluated risk of bias through identification, examination, and evaluation of study protocols and judged it to be low, unclear, or high across studies: unclear for all domains in one study, and unclear for selective outcome reporting across all studies; low for blinding of participants and personnel in four studies and unclear in the remaining three; low for blinding of outcome assessors in three studies and unclear in four studies. We judged risk of bias to be low in two studies and unclear in the remaining five studies for generation of allocation sequence; low in one study and unclear in six studies for allocation concealment; and low in one study, unclear in one study, and high in the remaining five studies for incomplete outcome data. The manufacturer of Cerebrolysin supported four multicentre studies, either totally, or by providing Cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians. We judged three studies to be at high risk of other bias and the remaining four studies to be at unclear risk of other bias. All-cause death: we extracted data from six trials (1517 participants). Cerebrolysin probably results in little to no difference in all-cause death: risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.32 (6 trials, 1517 participants, moderate-quality evidence). None of the included trials reported on poor functional outcome defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period or early death (within two weeks of stroke onset), or time to restoration of capacity for work and quality of life. Only one trial clearly reported on the cause of death: cerebral infarct (four in the Cerebrolysin and two in the placebo group), heart failure (two in the Cerebrolysin and one in the placebo group), pulmonary embolism (two in the placebo group), and pneumonia (one in the placebo group). Serious adverse events (SAEs): Cerebrolysin probably results in little to no difference in the total number of people with SAEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, 4 RCTs, 1435 participants, moderate-quality evidence). This comprised fatal SAEs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38) and an increase in the total number of people with non-fatal SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.55, P = 0.047, 4 trials, 1435 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the subgroup of dosing schedule 30 mL for 10 days (cumulative dose 300 mL), the increase was more prominent: RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.66, P = 0.01 (2 trials, 1189 participants). Total number of people with adverse events: four trials reported on this outcome. Cerebrolysin may result in little to no difference in the total number of people with adverse events: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, P = 0.90, 4 trials, 1435 participants, low-quality evidence. Non-death attrition: evidence from six trials involving 1517 participants suggests that Cerebrolysin results in little to no difference in non-death attrition, with 96 out of 764 Cerebrolysin-treated participants and 117 out of 753 placebo-treated participants being lost to follow-up for reasons other than death (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence indicates that Cerebrolysin probably has little or no beneficial effect on preventing all-cause death in acute ischaemic stroke, or on the total number of people with serious adverse events. Moderate-quality evidence also indicates a potential increase in non-fatal serious adverse events with Cerebrolysin use.

Assessment of the value of 3D-DSA combined with neurointerventional thrombolysis in the treatment of senile cerebrovascular occlusion

Assessment of the value of three-dimensional digital subtraction angiography (3D-DSA) combined with neurointerventional thrombolysis in the treatment of senile cerebrovascular occlusion was investigated. A total of 129 patients with senile cerebrovascular occlusion admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University from August 2015 to September 2017 were collected. Among them, 69 patients who underwent neurointerventional catheter thrombolysis under 3D-DSA were included in the study group, and 60 patients treated with neurointerventional thrombolysis were the control group. The levels of inflammatory cytokines IL-6, IL-1β and IL-8 in the two groups were measured by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) before treatment (T0), 7 days (7d) after treatment (T1) and 14 days (14d) after treatment (T2). The score of the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale and the clinical efficacy of patients in the two groups were compared before and after treatment, and Barthel index (BI) was used for investigation before and after treatment. The recurrence rate of disease in the two groups within 1 year was recorded. At T1, IL-6, IL-1β and IL-8 in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The NIHSS score in the study group was lower than that in the control group after treatment (P<0.05). The BI score in the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group after treatment (P<0.05). After the prognostic follow-up, the disease recurrence rate of the study group was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). In conclusion, 3D-DSA combined with neurointerventional thrombolysis can significantly reduce the expression of inflammatory cytokines and improve the quality of life in patients with cerebrovascular occlusion, which has a high clinical value.

Update in Neurocritical Care: a summary of the 2018 Paris international conference of the French Society of Intensive Care

The 2018 Paris Intensive Care symposium entitled "Update in Neurocritical Care" was organized in Paris, June 21-22, 2018, under the auspices of the French Intensive Care Society. This 2-day post-graduate educational symposium comprised several chapters, aiming first to provide all-board intensivists with current standards for the clinical assessment of altered consciousness states (including coma and delirium) and peripheral nervous system in critically ill patients, monitoring of brain function (specifically, electro-encephalography) and best practices for sedation-analgesia-delirium management. An update on the treatment of specific severe brain pathologies-including ischaemic/haemorrhagic stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis, hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury, immune-mediated and infectious encephalitis and refractory status epilepticus-was also provided. Finally, we discuss how to approach some difficult decisions, namely the role of decompressive craniectomy and prognostication models in patients with head injury. For each chapter, the scope of the present review was to provide important issues and key messages, provide most recent and relevant literature in the field, and briefly describe new developments in the field.