Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Critical Care Decisions After Large Core Cerebral Infarctions: A Secondary Analysis From the SELECT2 Trial

  • for the SELECT2 Investigators
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Temple University
  • Case Western Reserve University
  • University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
  • University of Kansas
  • Rush University Medical Center
  • University of Iowa
  • Cleveland Clinic Foundation
  • Royal Melbourne Hospital
  • Thomas Jefferson University
  • Ascension Columbia St. Mary's Hospital Milwaukee
  • Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid
  • Spectrum Health
  • Riverside Methodist Hospital
  • Abington Jefferson Health
  • Liverpool Hospital
  • University of New South Wales
  • Baptist Health
  • Canterbury District Health Board
  • Hospital Universitari Bellvitge (L'Hospitalet de Llobregat)
  • Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol
  • Toronto Western Hospital University of Toronto
  • Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Clínic
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • Westchester Medical Center
  • Royal Adelaide Hospital
  • Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine
  • University of Calgary
  • Boston Medical Center
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
  • University of Toronto
  • Stanford University
  • Memorial Hermann Healthcare System
  • Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari
  • Valley Baptist Medical Center

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: Among patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and large ischemic cores, critical decisions often need to be made about decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) or early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST). In this study, we aimed to evaluate utilization of DHC and early WLST and factors associated with them in patients with large strokes from the SELECT2 trial. Methods: We analyzed the entire SELECT2 trial population, which randomized 352 patients with stroke due to LVO and large ischemic cores to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) or medical management. We used the as-treated principle to compare the use of DHC and early WLST within 7 days after randomization. We further assessed functional outcomes (modified Rankin Score) after these decisions. Results: Of 352 patients enrolled in this study, 55 received DHC and 81 transitioned to early WLST. Patients treated with EVT were as likely to undergo DHC (16% vs 15%, adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 1.19, 95% CI:0.75–1.88, p = 0.46) or WLST (22% vs 24%, aRR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.66–1.34, p = 0.72) as those given medical management. DHC was used more frequently in younger patients and WLST more in older patients. EVT efficacy was maintained after adjusting for DHC (adjusted generalized odds ratio [aGenOR] = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.24–2.11, p < 0.001), with no interaction between DHC and treatment (p-interaction = 0.93). At 1 year, 21% of DHC-treated patients were ambulatory; the outcomes were universally poor after early WLST. Interpretation: In the SELECT2 trial of patients with large ischemic core, DHC was performed in ~1 of 6 patients and early WLST in ~1 of 5 patients, without differences based on treatment with EVT or medical management, nor successful reperfusion. DHC or WLST did not detract from thrombectomy treatment benefit. Additionally, ~20% of patients achieved independent ambulation despite receiving DHC by the 1-year follow-up. The similar distribution of these critical care decisions provides reassurance that the overall trial outcomes were not biased by open-label treatment allocation. ANN NEUROL 2025;97:698–708.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)698-708
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Neurology
Volume97
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2025
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Critical Care Decisions After Large Core Cerebral Infarctions: A Secondary Analysis From the SELECT2 Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this