Simple against advanced imaging for the selection of stroke therapy in the extended window (VESTA study)

The optimal imaging modality for selecting stroke patients for revascularisation in the extended window remains uncertain. The VESTA study compared simple (non-contrast CT + CTA) vs advanced imaging (including perfusion) in the extended window in terms of clinical outcomes, mortality and safety.

This multicentre cohort study included 1262 stroke patients (last seen well 6-24 h, NIHSS ≥ 6) from the Catalan Stroke Registry (2019-2021). A central core lab re-evaluated images, and blinded investigators assessed 90-day functional outcomes. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multivariable methods were applied.

Median age was 76 years, NIHSS 12 and 48% were women. Simple imaging was used in 44% (n = 550), advanced in 56% (n = 712). Simple imaging had higher rates of no arterial occlusion (49% vs 37%, P = .006) and slightly lower endovascular treatment rates (36% vs 40%, P = .117). Time metrics were similar. In the IPW analysis, (advanced imaging as reference), simple imaging showed numerically worse point estimates across all outcomes, although most differences did not reach statistical significance: a worse mRS shift (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.17 [95% CI, 0.96-1.43]; P = .11), a lower good functional outcome (mRS 0-2; aOR 0.83 [0.66-1.06]; P = .13), a higher mortality (aOR 1.20 [0.91-1.58]; P = .20), more frequent sICH (aOR 1.25 [0.61, 2.57]; P = .55) and a higher risk of any ICH (aOR 1.57 [1.00-2.47]; P = .05).

In moderate-to-severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 6) within 6-24 h, simple imaging did not show a statistically significant difference vs advanced imaging for guiding stroke treatment. However, advanced imaging may improve patient selection for reperfusion and reduce haemorrhagic risk.

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT05299034.