Determining Outcomes in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion and Mild Stroke Who Did or Did Not Receive Thrombolytics...

The utility of thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy in patients with mild stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) remains inconclusive. This retrospective study compared short-term and long-term outcomes in patients treated with best medical therapy (BMT group) versus with intravenous thrombolytics and/or endovascular thrombectomy (intervention group).

Patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS), LVO, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Score (NIHSS) ≤5 were included. Data collected includes demographics; hospital length of stay (LOS); modified Rankin scale (mRS) at admission, discharge, and follow-up; hemorrhagic conversion; and disposition. Bivariate analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between groups.

Of the 29 patients, 15 were treated with BMT and 14 underwent intervention. Median hospital LOS was slightly longer in the intervention group (6.5 [IQR=4 to 12] vs. 5 [IQR=3 to 5] d, P=0.070). Everyone in the BMT group had a favorable outcome (mRS 0 to 2) at discharge and follow-up, unlike the intervention group's rate at discharge (100% vs. 71.4%, P=0.042), This gap was closed at follow-up between BMT group (median=33 d, IQR=28 to 48) and intervention group (median=44.5 days, IQR=30 to 48) (100% vs. 85.7%, P=0.224). Hemorrhagic conversion rates were similar between groups. More patients in the BMT group were discharged home (80% vs. 42.9%, P=0.079).

Patients with AIS, low NIHSS, and LVO, who received thrombolytics and/or thrombectomy had longer hospital LOS, higher mRS at discharge and follow-up, and were less likely to be discharged home, though these trends were not statistically significant. Our study is limited by a small sample size and these findings should be further explored in larger studies.