Abstract W MP10: Outcome and Futile Recanalization in Basilar Artery Occlusion - Systematic Analysis

Abstract

Background: Basilar artery occlusion (BAO) is a most devastating form of stroke, and the current wisdom is to reverse it with revascularization therapies. Pharmacological thrombolysis have been adjuncted or replaced with endovascular thrombectomy devices. The preferred approach remains unknown and most recanalizations are futile with no clinical benefit. Methods: To determine whether invasive, endovascular interventions are superior to pharmacological thrombolysis alone we analyzed systematically the reported outcomes produced by variable BAO recanalization protocols. Information was retrieved from 15 reports published from 2005 comprising 803 patients in 17 cohorts. In the largest single-center cohort (162, Helsinki), predictors of futile recanalization (FR;3-month modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 4 to 6) were determined. Results: Good outcome was reported by pharmacological protocols less frequently than by mechanical approaches either alone or on-demand (24.4% vs. 35.5% %, p<0.001), accompanied by lower recanalization rates (70.9% vs. 84.1%, p<0.001)(Figure). Afforded by superior recanalization rate at 91%, good outcome was reached by primary thrombectomy with stent-retrievers in 36%, but at the cost of substantial FR rate at 60%. In the largest single-center cohort, the single most significant predictor was extensive baseline ischemia, increasing the odds of futility 20-fold (95%CI 4.39-92.29, p<0.001). Other attributes of futility were ventilation support and history of atrial fibrillation or previous stroke. Conclusion: Mechanical endovascular approaches have reported superior primary outcome rates over pharmacological thrombolysis in BAO. Stricter patient selection, most notably to exclude victims of already extended ischemia, would assist in translating excellent recanalization rates into improved clinical outcomes and more acceptable futility rates.