Currently, endovascular treatment has been proven to be effective when conducted within 6 hours of symptom onset. However, when patients have symptoms for more than 6 hours, have a daytime-unwitnessed stroke (DUS) or wake up with a stroke (wake-up stroke, WUS), the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment need to be further elucidated. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular treatment in patients with ischemic stroke beyond the time window with that ≤6 hours. PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid MEDLINE were searched from inception to November 2018. The following outcomes were evaluated by a random-effects model: efficacy outcomes, that is, functional independence and successful recanalization, and safety outcomes, that is, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and mortality. Subgroup analyses were also performed to examine whether patient or study characteristics were associated with the outcomes. Nine observational studies, including 5192 patients (1414 patients with extended time windows [ETWs]; 3778 patients ≤6 hours), were eligible for analysis. The overall analysis demonstrated that the functional independence was worse in patients with ETWs vs those ≤6 hours (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90, P = .0006). However, subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in functional independence between the two groups when patients were selected for a perfusion mismatch by imaging (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70-1.43, P = 1.000). Therefore, compared with a window ≤6 hours, endovascular treatment with ETWs for ischemic stroke may not result in poor outcomes when patients are typically selected by perfusion techniques.
Keywords: 6 hours; acute ischemic stroke; daytime-unwitnessed stroke; endovascular treatment; meta-analysis; wake-up stroke.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.