Intensive blood pressure control after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke (ENCHANTED2/MT): a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial.

Lancet (London, England) Pub Date : 2022-11-05 Epub Date: 2022-10-28 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01882-7
Pengfei Yang, Lili Song, Yongwei Zhang, Xiaoxi Zhang, Xiaoying Chen, Yunke Li, Lingli Sun, Yingfeng Wan, Laurent Billot, Qiang Li, Xinwen Ren, Hongjian Shen, Lei Zhang, Zifu Li, Pengfei Xing, Yongxin Zhang, Ping Zhang, Weilong Hua, Fang Shen, Yihan Zhou, Bing Tian, Wenhuo Chen, Hongxing Han, Liyong Zhang, Chenghua Xu, Tong Li, Ya Peng, Xincan Yue, Shengli Chen, Changming Wen, Shu Wan, Congguo Yin, Ming Wei, Hansheng Shu, Guangxian Nan, Sheng Liu, Wenhua Liu, Yiling Cai, Yi Sui, Maohua Chen, Yu Zhou, Qiao Zuo, Dongwei Dai, Rui Zhao, Qiang Li, Qinghai Huang, Yi Xu, Benqiang Deng, Tao Wu, Jianping Lu, Xia Wang, Mark W Parsons, Ken Butcher, Bruce Campbell, Thompson G Robinson, Mayank Goyal, Diederik Dippel, Yvo Roos, Charles Majoie, Longde Wang, Yongjun Wang, Jianmin Liu, Craig S Anderson
{"title":"Intensive blood pressure control after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke (ENCHANTED2/MT): a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Pengfei Yang,&nbsp;Lili Song,&nbsp;Yongwei Zhang,&nbsp;Xiaoxi Zhang,&nbsp;Xiaoying Chen,&nbsp;Yunke Li,&nbsp;Lingli Sun,&nbsp;Yingfeng Wan,&nbsp;Laurent Billot,&nbsp;Qiang Li,&nbsp;Xinwen Ren,&nbsp;Hongjian Shen,&nbsp;Lei Zhang,&nbsp;Zifu Li,&nbsp;Pengfei Xing,&nbsp;Yongxin Zhang,&nbsp;Ping Zhang,&nbsp;Weilong Hua,&nbsp;Fang Shen,&nbsp;Yihan Zhou,&nbsp;Bing Tian,&nbsp;Wenhuo Chen,&nbsp;Hongxing Han,&nbsp;Liyong Zhang,&nbsp;Chenghua Xu,&nbsp;Tong Li,&nbsp;Ya Peng,&nbsp;Xincan Yue,&nbsp;Shengli Chen,&nbsp;Changming Wen,&nbsp;Shu Wan,&nbsp;Congguo Yin,&nbsp;Ming Wei,&nbsp;Hansheng Shu,&nbsp;Guangxian Nan,&nbsp;Sheng Liu,&nbsp;Wenhua Liu,&nbsp;Yiling Cai,&nbsp;Yi Sui,&nbsp;Maohua Chen,&nbsp;Yu Zhou,&nbsp;Qiao Zuo,&nbsp;Dongwei Dai,&nbsp;Rui Zhao,&nbsp;Qiang Li,&nbsp;Qinghai Huang,&nbsp;Yi Xu,&nbsp;Benqiang Deng,&nbsp;Tao Wu,&nbsp;Jianping Lu,&nbsp;Xia Wang,&nbsp;Mark W Parsons,&nbsp;Ken Butcher,&nbsp;Bruce Campbell,&nbsp;Thompson G Robinson,&nbsp;Mayank Goyal,&nbsp;Diederik Dippel,&nbsp;Yvo Roos,&nbsp;Charles Majoie,&nbsp;Longde Wang,&nbsp;Yongjun Wang,&nbsp;Jianmin Liu,&nbsp;Craig S Anderson","doi":"10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01882-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimum systolic blood pressure after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke is uncertain. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of blood pressure lowering treatment according to more intensive versus less intensive treatment targets in patients with elevated blood pressure after reperfusion with endovascular treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial at 44 tertiary-level hospitals in China. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had persistently elevated systolic blood pressure (≥140 mm Hg for &gt;10 min) following successful reperfusion with endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke from any intracranial large-vessel occlusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1, by a central, web-based program with a minimisation algorithm) to more intensive treatment (systolic blood pressure target &lt;120 mm Hg) or less intensive treatment (target 140-180 mm Hg) to be achieved within 1 h and sustained for 72 h. The primary efficacy outcome was functional recovery, assessed according to the distribution in scores on the modified Rankin scale (range 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. Analyses were done according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Efficacy analyses were performed with proportional odds logistic regression with adjustment for treatment allocation as a fixed effect, site as a random effect, and baseline prognostic factors, and included all randomly assigned patients who provided consent and had available data for the primary outcome. The safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients. The treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04140110, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, 1900027785; recruitment has stopped at all participating centres.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Between July 20, 2020, and March 7, 2022, 821 patients were randomly assigned. The trial was stopped after review of the outcome data on June 22, 2022, due to persistent efficacy and safety concerns. 407 participants were assigned to the more intensive treatment group and 409 to the less intensive treatment group, of whom 404 patients in the more intensive treatment group and 406 patients in the less intensive treatment group had primary outcome data available. The likelihood of poor functional outcome was greater in the more intensive treatment group than the less intensive treatment group (common OR 1·37 [95% CI 1·07-1·76]). Compared with the less intensive treatment group, the more intensive treatment group had more early neurological deterioration (common OR 1·53 [95% 1·18-1·97]) and major disability at 90 days (OR 2·07 [95% CI 1·47-2·93]) but there were no significant differences in symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events or mortality between groups.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Intensive control of systolic blood pressure to lower than 120 mm Hg should be avoided to prevent compromising the functional recovery of patients who have received endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke due to intracranial large-vessel occlusion.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>The Shanghai Hospital Development Center; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; Medical Research Futures Fund of Australia; China Stroke Prevention; Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality; Takeda China; Hasten Biopharmaceutic; Genesis Medtech; Penumbra.</p>","PeriodicalId":251261,"journal":{"name":"Lancet (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":"1585-1596"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01882-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

Abstract

Background: The optimum systolic blood pressure after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke is uncertain. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of blood pressure lowering treatment according to more intensive versus less intensive treatment targets in patients with elevated blood pressure after reperfusion with endovascular treatment.

Methods: We conducted an open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial at 44 tertiary-level hospitals in China. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had persistently elevated systolic blood pressure (≥140 mm Hg for >10 min) following successful reperfusion with endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke from any intracranial large-vessel occlusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1, by a central, web-based program with a minimisation algorithm) to more intensive treatment (systolic blood pressure target <120 mm Hg) or less intensive treatment (target 140-180 mm Hg) to be achieved within 1 h and sustained for 72 h. The primary efficacy outcome was functional recovery, assessed according to the distribution in scores on the modified Rankin scale (range 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. Analyses were done according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Efficacy analyses were performed with proportional odds logistic regression with adjustment for treatment allocation as a fixed effect, site as a random effect, and baseline prognostic factors, and included all randomly assigned patients who provided consent and had available data for the primary outcome. The safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients. The treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04140110, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, 1900027785; recruitment has stopped at all participating centres.

Findings: Between July 20, 2020, and March 7, 2022, 821 patients were randomly assigned. The trial was stopped after review of the outcome data on June 22, 2022, due to persistent efficacy and safety concerns. 407 participants were assigned to the more intensive treatment group and 409 to the less intensive treatment group, of whom 404 patients in the more intensive treatment group and 406 patients in the less intensive treatment group had primary outcome data available. The likelihood of poor functional outcome was greater in the more intensive treatment group than the less intensive treatment group (common OR 1·37 [95% CI 1·07-1·76]). Compared with the less intensive treatment group, the more intensive treatment group had more early neurological deterioration (common OR 1·53 [95% 1·18-1·97]) and major disability at 90 days (OR 2·07 [95% CI 1·47-2·93]) but there were no significant differences in symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events or mortality between groups.

Interpretation: Intensive control of systolic blood pressure to lower than 120 mm Hg should be avoided to prevent compromising the functional recovery of patients who have received endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke due to intracranial large-vessel occlusion.

Funding: The Shanghai Hospital Development Center; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; Medical Research Futures Fund of Australia; China Stroke Prevention; Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality; Takeda China; Hasten Biopharmaceutic; Genesis Medtech; Penumbra.

急性缺血性卒中血管内血栓切除术后强化血压控制(ENCHANTED2/MT):一项多中心、开放标签、盲终点、随机对照试验。
背景:急性缺血性脑卒中血管内血栓切除术后的最佳收缩压尚不确定。我们的目的是比较血管内再灌注后血压升高患者降压治疗的安全性和有效性,根据更强和更弱的治疗靶点。方法:我们在中国44家三级医院进行了一项开放标签、盲终点、随机对照试验。符合条件的患者(年龄≥18岁)因颅内大血管闭塞导致的急性缺血性卒中,经血管内取栓成功再灌注后收缩压持续升高(≥140 mm Hg持续10分钟)。患者被随机分配(1:1,由一个中心的、基于网络的最小化算法的程序)到更强化的治疗(收缩压目标120毫米汞柱)或更弱的治疗(目标140-180毫米汞柱),在1小时内达到并持续72小时。主要疗效指标是功能恢复,根据90天修改的Rankin量表(范围0[无症状]到6[死亡])的评分分布进行评估。根据改进的意向治疗原则进行分析。疗效分析采用比例赔率逻辑回归进行,调整治疗分配为固定效应,地点为随机效应,基线预后因素,并包括所有随机分配的患者,这些患者提供同意并具有主要结局的可用数据。安全性分析包括所有随机分配的患者。治疗效果用比值比(ORs)表示。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,NCT04140110,中国临床试验注册中心注册,1900027785;所有参与中心已停止征聘工作。研究结果:在2020年7月20日至2022年3月7日期间,821名患者被随机分配。由于持续的有效性和安全性问题,该试验于2022年6月22日在审查结果数据后停止。407名患者被分配到强化治疗组,409名患者被分配到弱强化治疗组,其中强化治疗组404名患者和弱强化治疗组406名患者有主要结局数据。强化治疗组功能预后不良的可能性大于弱强化治疗组(常见OR为1.37 [95% CI为1.07 - 1.76])。与低强度治疗组相比,高强度治疗组早期神经功能恶化较多(常见OR 1.53 [95% 1.18 - 1.97]), 90 d时主要残疾较多(OR 2.07 [95% CI 1.47 - 2.93]),但症状性脑出血方面差异无统计学意义。两组间严重不良事件或死亡率无显著差异。解释:应避免将收缩压严格控制在120毫米汞柱以下,以防止因颅内大血管闭塞而急性缺血性卒中患者接受血管内取栓术后功能恢复受损。资助:上海市医院发展中心;澳大利亚国家卫生和医学研究委员会;澳大利亚医学研究期货基金;中国脑卒中预防;上海市科学技术委员会上海长海医院;武田中国;加速Biopharmaceutic;《创世纪》医学技术;半影。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信