Determining Outcomes in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion and Mild Stroke Who Did or Did Not Receive Thrombolytics and/or Thrombectomy.

Abstract

Objectives: The utility of thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy in patients with mild stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) remains inconclusive. This retrospective study compared short-term and long-term outcomes in patients treated with best medical therapy (BMT group) versus with intravenous thrombolytics and/or endovascular thrombectomy (intervention group).

Methods: Patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS), LVO, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Score (NIHSS) ≤5 were included. Data collected includes demographics; hospital length of stay (LOS); modified Rankin scale (mRS) at admission, discharge, and follow-up; hemorrhagic conversion; and disposition. Bivariate analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between groups.

Results: Of the 29 patients, 15 were treated with BMT and 14 underwent intervention. Median hospital LOS was slightly longer in the intervention group (6.5 [IQR=4 to 12] vs. 5 [IQR=3 to 5] d, P=0.070). Everyone in the BMT group had a favorable outcome (mRS 0 to 2) at discharge and follow-up, unlike the intervention group's rate at discharge (100% vs. 71.4%, P=0.042), This gap was closed at follow-up between BMT group (median=33 d, IQR=28 to 48) and intervention group (median=44.5 days, IQR=30 to 48) (100% vs. 85.7%, P=0.224). Hemorrhagic conversion rates were similar between groups. More patients in the BMT group were discharged home (80% vs. 42.9%, P=0.079).

Conclusions: Patients with AIS, low NIHSS, and LVO, who received thrombolytics and/or thrombectomy had longer hospital LOS, higher mRS at discharge and follow-up, and were less likely to be discharged home, though these trends were not statistically significant. Our study is limited by a small sample size and these findings should be further explored in larger studies.