Clinical impact of EVT with failed reperfusion in patients with acute ischemic stroke: results from the ESCAPE and ESCAPE-NA1 trials

Background and purpose: Endovascular treatment (EVT) is a powerful treatment for large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke if reperfusion can be achieved, while in cases with failed reperfusion, EVT may cause harm, as procedure-related complications may occur. We hypothesized that EVT with failed recanalization does not result in worse outcomes compared to best medical management and compared clinical outcomes of LVO stroke patients who underwent EVT with failed reperfusion to those who were treated with best medical management. Methods: We included patients with failed reperfusion from the control (EVT-only) arm of the ESCAPE-NA1 trial and the EVT arm of the ESCAPE trial and patients of the ESCAPE control arm who were treated with best medical management. Failed reperfusion following EVT was defined as modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score 0–2a. Proportions of good outcome (modified Rankin scale 0–2) were compared between patients who did and did not undergo EVT, and adjusted effect size estimates for EVT on outcomes were obtained. Results: We included 260 patients (110 failed EVT and 150 non-EVT patients). Proportions of good outcome were 38/110 (34.6%) with failed EVT vs.43/147 (29.3%) without EVT (adjusted odds ratio[aOR]: 1.48 [95%CI: 0.81–2.68]). Mortality and proportions of sICH in the failed EVT group vs. patients treated with best medical management were 26/110 (23.6%) vs. 28/147 (19.1%), aOR: 1.12 (95%CI: 0.56–2.24), and 7/110 (6.4%) vs. 4/150 (2.7%), aOR: 2.34 (95%CI: 0.00–22.97). Conclusion: Clinical outcomes of EVT patients with failed reperfusion did not differ significantly from patients treated with best medical management.