Endovascular Therapy is Effective for Large Vessel Occlusion Despite Concurrent Cancer

 Since your definition of effective is wrong, will you please get out of stroke and let better persons in? Effective is 100% recovery, not recanalization. 

Recanalization is only the first step in stroke recovery, there are many needed to follow. WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY?

Endovascular Therapy is Effective for Large Vessel Occlusion Despite Concurrent Cancer

• Thomas K. Mattingly, MD, MSc
• Jorge E. Risco, MD
• Jaclyn E. Burch, MD
• 
  
• Stephen Susa, BS
• Tarun Bhalla, MD, PhD
• Matthew T. Bender, MD
• Show all authors

Published:March 18, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2022.106439

Abstract

Objectives

Ischemic stroke and concurrent cancer is increasingly recognized. However, optimal management is uncertain. As mechanical thrombectomy has become the standard of care for large vessel occlusion, more patients with cancer are presenting for embolectomy. However, it is unknown whether this subgroup has the same benefit profile described in multiple randomized trials for thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion. Our objective was to retrospectively evaluate a North American embolectomy database for safety and outcomes in patients with active cancer.

Materials and methods

A case series of 284 embolectomies over 30 months at a single North American stroke center were divided into thrombectomy patients with active cancer(n=25) and those without active cancer (n=259). We compared patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, and procedural outcomes between patients with and without active cancer. Univariate and multivariate analysis of angiographic outcomes, postoperative hemorrhage, and functional outcome was performed.

Results

Of the 284 thrombectomy cases, 9% were performed on patients with active cancer. Active cancer patients had a similar recanalization grade and post-operative hemorrhage rate, compared to patients without cancer. Active cancer patients had a significantly higher 90 day mortality (40% vs 20%, p=0.018). On multivariate analysis, good functional outcome (mRS 0-2) was not impacted by active cancer. However, when mRS was evaluated as an ordinal shift analysis, worse functional outcome was associated with active cancer (OR 2.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 6.59), greater age, NIHSS> 10, and ASPECTS<9.

Conclusions

This single center retrospective series of active cancer patients undergoing thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion demonstrates similar rates of recanalization, post-operative hemorrhage, and good outcomes. While the active cancer group has a high short-term mortality, the potential to maintain quality of life in the survivors makes thrombectomy reasonable in this patient population. Awareness of ischemic stroke as a complication of cancer and the safety of thrombectomy in this population are important as this population subtype is expected to grow with improved oncology and stroke care