Normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in China (OPENS-2 trial): a multicentre, randomised, single-blind, sham-controlled trial

Weili Li, Jing Lan, Ming Wei, Lan Liu, Chengbei Hou, Zhifeng Qi, Chuanhui Li, Liqun Jiao, Qi Yang, Wenhuo Chen, Shuling Liu, Xincan Yue, Qinglin Dong, Haicheng Yuan, Zongen Gao, Xiangbin Wu, Changming Wen, Tong Li, Changchun Jiang, Di Li, Jing Zhou
{"title":"Normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in China (OPENS-2 trial): a multicentre, randomised, single-blind, sham-controlled trial","authors":"Weili Li, Jing Lan, Ming Wei, Lan Liu, Chengbei Hou, Zhifeng Qi, Chuanhui Li, Liqun Jiao, Qi Yang, Wenhuo Chen, Shuling Liu, Xincan Yue, Qinglin Dong, Haicheng Yuan, Zongen Gao, Xiangbin Wu, Changming Wen, Tong Li, Changchun Jiang, Di Li, Jing Zhou","doi":"10.1016/s0140-6736(24)02809-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background</h3>Endovascular treatment improves the recanalisation rate for patients with acute ischaemic stroke; however, even with endovascular treatment, approximately half of patients do not have a favourable functional outcome. We aimed to evaluate the effect of normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment on functional outcomes up to 90 days after treatment in patients who had an acute ischaemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion.<h3>Methods</h3>In this multicentre, randomised, single-blind, sham-controlled trial, patients aged 18–80 years presenting within 6 h of acute ischaemic stroke attributed to large-vessel occlusion in anterior circulation, who were candidates for endovascular treatment, were recruited from 26 comprehensive stroke centres in China. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with an Interactive Web Response System on the basis of a minimisation process to balance assignment at each participating site both overall and according to age, sex, occlusion location, and use of intravenous thrombolytics, to receive either normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment or sham normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment. Participants and assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. Normobaric hyperoxia treatment involved inhaling 100% oxygen at a flow rate of 10 L/min through a non-rebreather mask for 4 h, or an inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO<sub>2</sub>) of 1·0 in participants for whom intubation was necessary. Sham treatment was 100% oxygen delivered at a flow rate of 1 L/min or an FiO<sub>2</sub> of 0·3. The primary outcome was the comparison of the ordinal scores on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days assessed in the intention-to-treat population (including all patients randomly assigned to treatment). Safety was assessed in all patients who received any oxygen therapy. This trial is registered with <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg aria-label=\"Opens in new window\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"20\" viewbox=\"0 0 8 8\"><path d=\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\"></path></svg></span>, <span><span>NCT04681651</span><svg aria-label=\"Opens in new window\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"20\" viewbox=\"0 0 8 8\"><path d=\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\"></path></svg></span>, and is now complete.<h3>Findings</h3>Between April 22, 2021, and Feb 5, 2023, 473 patients were screened, of whom 282 were randomly assigned to either normobaric hyperoxia plus endovascular treatment (n=140) or sham normobaric hyperoxia plus endovascular treatment (n=142; intention-to-treat population). The median age was 65 years (IQR 57–71), 75 (27%) of 282 participants were female, 207 (73%) were male, and 282 (100%) of participants were of Chinese Han ethnicity. At 90 days, the median score on the mRS for the normobaric hyperoxia group was 2 (IQR 1–4) and it was 3 (1–4) in the sham normobaric hyperoxia group (adjusted common odds ratio 1·65 [95% CI 1·09–2·50]; p=0·018). At 90 days, 14 (10%) of 140 patients in the normobaric hyperoxia group and 17 (12%) of 142 in the sham normobaric hyperoxia group died (adjusted risk difference –0·02 [95% CI –0·09 to 0·06]) and 28 (20%) and 33 (23%) had serious adverse events (adjusted risk difference –0·03 [–0·12 to 0·07]).<h3>Interpretation</h3>In patients with acute ischaemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who were candidates for endovascular treatment, normobaric hyperoxia yielded superior functional outcomes at 90 days compared with the sham normobaric hyperoxia, without raising safety concerns.<h3>Funding</h3>Beijing Municipal Education Commission, Beijing Municipal Finance Bureau, and National Natural Science Foundation of China.","PeriodicalId":22898,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)02809-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Endovascular treatment improves the recanalisation rate for patients with acute ischaemic stroke; however, even with endovascular treatment, approximately half of patients do not have a favourable functional outcome. We aimed to evaluate the effect of normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment on functional outcomes up to 90 days after treatment in patients who had an acute ischaemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion.

Methods

In this multicentre, randomised, single-blind, sham-controlled trial, patients aged 18–80 years presenting within 6 h of acute ischaemic stroke attributed to large-vessel occlusion in anterior circulation, who were candidates for endovascular treatment, were recruited from 26 comprehensive stroke centres in China. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with an Interactive Web Response System on the basis of a minimisation process to balance assignment at each participating site both overall and according to age, sex, occlusion location, and use of intravenous thrombolytics, to receive either normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment or sham normobaric hyperoxia combined with endovascular treatment. Participants and assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. Normobaric hyperoxia treatment involved inhaling 100% oxygen at a flow rate of 10 L/min through a non-rebreather mask for 4 h, or an inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2) of 1·0 in participants for whom intubation was necessary. Sham treatment was 100% oxygen delivered at a flow rate of 1 L/min or an FiO2 of 0·3. The primary outcome was the comparison of the ordinal scores on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days assessed in the intention-to-treat population (including all patients randomly assigned to treatment). Safety was assessed in all patients who received any oxygen therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04681651, and is now complete.

Findings

Between April 22, 2021, and Feb 5, 2023, 473 patients were screened, of whom 282 were randomly assigned to either normobaric hyperoxia plus endovascular treatment (n=140) or sham normobaric hyperoxia plus endovascular treatment (n=142; intention-to-treat population). The median age was 65 years (IQR 57–71), 75 (27%) of 282 participants were female, 207 (73%) were male, and 282 (100%) of participants were of Chinese Han ethnicity. At 90 days, the median score on the mRS for the normobaric hyperoxia group was 2 (IQR 1–4) and it was 3 (1–4) in the sham normobaric hyperoxia group (adjusted common odds ratio 1·65 [95% CI 1·09–2·50]; p=0·018). At 90 days, 14 (10%) of 140 patients in the normobaric hyperoxia group and 17 (12%) of 142 in the sham normobaric hyperoxia group died (adjusted risk difference –0·02 [95% CI –0·09 to 0·06]) and 28 (20%) and 33 (23%) had serious adverse events (adjusted risk difference –0·03 [–0·12 to 0·07]).

Interpretation

In patients with acute ischaemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who were candidates for endovascular treatment, normobaric hyperoxia yielded superior functional outcomes at 90 days compared with the sham normobaric hyperoxia, without raising safety concerns.

Funding

Beijing Municipal Education Commission, Beijing Municipal Finance Bureau, and National Natural Science Foundation of China.
常压高氧联合血管内治疗急性缺血性脑卒中(open -2试验):一项多中心、随机、单盲、假对照试验
背景:血管治疗可提高急性缺血性脑卒中患者的再通率;然而,即使采用血管内治疗,大约一半的患者没有良好的功能结果。我们的目的是评估常压高氧联合血管内治疗对急性缺血性卒中合并大血管闭塞患者治疗后90天功能结局的影响。方法在这项多中心、随机、单盲、假对照试验中,从中国26个卒中综合中心招募年龄在18-80岁、因前循环大血管闭塞而在6小时内出现急性缺血性卒中的患者,这些患者是血管内治疗的候选者。符合条件的患者被随机分配(1:1),根据年龄、性别、闭塞位置和静脉溶栓药物的使用,在最小化过程的基础上,通过交互式Web响应系统来平衡每个参与部位的分配,接受正压高氧联合血管内治疗或假正压高氧联合血管内治疗。参与者和评估者对治疗分配不知情。常压高氧治疗包括通过非呼吸面罩以10l /min的流速吸入100%的氧气4小时,或在需要插管的参与者中吸入氧气分数(FiO2)为1.0。假手术为100%供氧,流速为1 L/min或FiO2为0.3。主要结局是在意向治疗人群(包括所有随机分配治疗的患者)中评估的90天修正Rankin量表(mRS)的序数评分的比较。对所有接受氧疗的患者进行安全性评估。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,编号NCT04681651,现已完成。在2021年4月22日至2023年2月5日期间,筛选了473例患者,其中282例随机分配到常压高氧+血管内治疗组(n=140)或假常压高氧+血管内治疗组(n=142;意向处理人口)。年龄中位数为65岁(IQR为57 ~ 71),282名受试者中女性75名(27%),男性207名(73%),汉族282名(100%)。90天时,常压高氧组的mRS中位评分为2 (IQR 1 - 4),假常压高氧组的mRS中位评分为3(1 - 4)(校正共同优势比1.65 [95% CI 1.09 - 2.50];p = 0·018)。90 d时,140例常压高氧组患者中有14例(10%)死亡,142例假常压高氧组患者中有17例(12%)死亡(校正风险差为- 0.02 [95% CI - 0.09 ~ 0.06]), 28例(20%)和33例(23%)发生严重不良事件(校正风险差为- 0.03[- 0.012 ~ 0.07])。解释:在前循环大血管闭塞引起的急性缺血性卒中患者中,与假正压高氧相比,正压高氧在90天内产生了更好的功能结果,没有引起安全性问题。北京市教委、北京市财政局、国家自然科学基金资助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信