Aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy as first-line approach for large vessel occlusion (COMPASS): a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, non-inferiority trial.
Journal
Lancet (London, England)
ISSN: 1474-547X
Titre abrégé: Lancet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985213R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Mar 2019
09 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
05
07
2018
revised:
09
01
2019
accepted:
25
01
2019
entrez:
13
3
2019
pubmed:
13
3
2019
medline:
2
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Stent retriever thrombectomy of large-vessel occlusion results in better outcomes than medical therapy alone. Alternative thrombectomy strategies, particularly a direct aspiration as first pass technique, while promising, have not been rigorously assessed for clinical efficacy in randomised trials. We designed COMPASS to assess whether patients treated with aspiration as first pass have non-inferior functional outcomes to those treated with a stent retriever as first line. We did a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, core lab adjudicated non-inferiority trial at 15 sites (ten hospitals and four specialty clinics in the USA and one hospital in Canada). Eligible participants were patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke from anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion within 6 h of onset and an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of greater than 6. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) via a central web-based system without stratification to either direct aspiration first pass or stent retriever first line thrombectomy. Those assessing primary outcomes via clinical examinations were masked to group assignment as they were not involved in the procedures. Physicians were allowed to use adjunctive technology as was consistent with their standard of care. The null hypothesis for this study was that patients treated with aspiration as first pass achieve inferior outcomes compared with those treated with a stent retriever first line approach. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of clinical functional outcome at 90 days as measured by the percentage of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2, analysed by intent to treat; non-inferiority was established with a margin of 0·15. All randomly assigned patients were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT02466893. Between June 1, 2015, and July 5, 2017, we assigned 270 patients to treatment: 134 to aspiration first pass and 136 to stent retriever first line. A modified Rankin score of 0-2 at 90 days was achieved by 69 patients (52%; 95% CI 43·8-60·3) in the aspiration group and 67 patients (50%; 41·6-57·4) in the stent retriever group, showing that aspiration as first pass was non-inferior to stent retriever first line (p A direct aspiration as first pass thrombectomy conferred non-inferior functional outcome at 90 days compared with stent retriever first line thrombectomy. This study supports the use of direct aspiration as an alternative to stent retriever as first-line therapy for stroke thrombectomy. Penumbra.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Stent retriever thrombectomy of large-vessel occlusion results in better outcomes than medical therapy alone. Alternative thrombectomy strategies, particularly a direct aspiration as first pass technique, while promising, have not been rigorously assessed for clinical efficacy in randomised trials. We designed COMPASS to assess whether patients treated with aspiration as first pass have non-inferior functional outcomes to those treated with a stent retriever as first line.
METHODS
METHODS
We did a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, core lab adjudicated non-inferiority trial at 15 sites (ten hospitals and four specialty clinics in the USA and one hospital in Canada). Eligible participants were patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke from anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion within 6 h of onset and an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of greater than 6. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) via a central web-based system without stratification to either direct aspiration first pass or stent retriever first line thrombectomy. Those assessing primary outcomes via clinical examinations were masked to group assignment as they were not involved in the procedures. Physicians were allowed to use adjunctive technology as was consistent with their standard of care. The null hypothesis for this study was that patients treated with aspiration as first pass achieve inferior outcomes compared with those treated with a stent retriever first line approach. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of clinical functional outcome at 90 days as measured by the percentage of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2, analysed by intent to treat; non-inferiority was established with a margin of 0·15. All randomly assigned patients were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT02466893.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Between June 1, 2015, and July 5, 2017, we assigned 270 patients to treatment: 134 to aspiration first pass and 136 to stent retriever first line. A modified Rankin score of 0-2 at 90 days was achieved by 69 patients (52%; 95% CI 43·8-60·3) in the aspiration group and 67 patients (50%; 41·6-57·4) in the stent retriever group, showing that aspiration as first pass was non-inferior to stent retriever first line (p
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
A direct aspiration as first pass thrombectomy conferred non-inferior functional outcome at 90 days compared with stent retriever first line thrombectomy. This study supports the use of direct aspiration as an alternative to stent retriever as first-line therapy for stroke thrombectomy.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
Penumbra.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30860055
pii: S0140-6736(19)30297-1
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30297-1
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02466893']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
998-1008Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.