Background: Endovascular treatment has become standard of care for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion. However, patients treated in clinical practice differ from the selected populations randomized in clinical trials. Aims: The German Stroke Registry Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET) aims at a systematic evaluation of outcome, safety, and process parameters of endovascular stroke treatment in standard of care in Germany. Methods: The GSR-ET is an academic, independent, prospective, multicenter, observational registry study. Participating stroke centers from all over of Germany consecutively enroll patients transferred to the angiography suite with an intention to be treated with endovascular stroke treatment. Patients receive regular care. Data are collected as part of clinical routine. Baseline clinical and procedural information and clinical follow-up information after 90 days are recorded. Here, we present an analysis of baseline data of the first 1662 patients included in the GSR-ET. Results: The registry was established in June 2015. By 31 December 2017, 1662 patients were enrolled in 23 active sites. Mean age was 72 ± 13 years, 50% were female, and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale on admission was 15 (IQR 10–19), 88% had anterior circulation occlusion. Median ASPECT score was 8 (IQR 7–10) prior to intervention. Fifty-nine percent of patients received intravenous thrombolysis prior to thrombectomy. Mean “onset-to-groin” time was 224 ± 176 min. Conclusions: Baseline characteristics of stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy in clinical practice differ from those in the randomized trials. The GSR-ET will provide valuable insights into practices of endovascular treatment in routine care of acute ischemic stroke. (GSR-ET ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03356392.)

Background and purpose: Up to 30% of infective endocarditis (IE) patients have ischemic stroke as a complication. Standard treatment with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with or without intravenous thrombolysis for large vessel occlusion (LVO) has not been evaluated formally in these patients.Methods: Patients enrolled in the German Stroke Registry–Endovascular Treatment (GSR‐ET) between June 2015 and December 2019 were analyzed. Patients with stroke due to IE and patients with cardioembolic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) were compared using propensity score matching. Successful reperfusion was defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score = 2b–3. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) = 0–2 at 3 months indicated good outcome.Results: Of 6635 patients, 55 patients (age = 69.0 ± 13.3 years, 43.6% female, median premorbid mRS (pmRS) = 1, interquartile range [IQR] = 0–1, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] = 15, IQR = 10–21) presented with septic embolic stroke due to IE and were compared to 104 patients (age = 66.5 ± 13.4 years, 39.4% female, pmRS = 0, IQR = 0–2, NIHSS = 16, IQR = 10–20) with cardioembolic stroke due to AF. Successful recanalization was achieved in 74.5% of endocarditis patients compared to 87.5% of controls (p = 0.039). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were comparable (30.9% vs. 21.6%, p = 0.175). Good functional outcome was 20.0% in patients with IE compared to 43.3% in matched patients (p = 0.006), with a significantly higher mortality (60.0% vs. 28.8%, p < 0.001). IE was strongly associated with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11–0.87, p = 0.03 for good outcome) and mortality (OR = 4.49, 95% CI = 1.80–10.68, p = 0.001).Conclusions: Although MT results in high successful recanalization rates with acceptable safety profile, patients with LVO stroke due to IE have poor outcome.

Background: The objective of the STREAM Trial was to evaluate the effect of simulation training on process times in acute stroke care.Methods: The multicenter prospective interventional STREAM Trial was conducted between 10/2017 and 04/2019 at seven tertiary care neurocenters in Germany with a pre‐ and post‐interventional observation phase. We recorded patient characteristics, acute stroke care process times, stroke team composition and simulation experience for consecutive direct‐to‐center patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular therapy (EVT). The intervention consisted of a composite intervention centered around stroke‐specific in situ simulation training. Primary outcome measure was the ‘door‐to‐needle’ time (DTN) for IVT. Secondary outcome measures included process times of EVT and measures taken to streamline the pre‐existing treatment algorithm.Results: The effect of the STREAM intervention on the process times of all acute stroke operations was neutral. However, secondary analyses showed a DTN reduction of 5 min from 38 min pre‐intervention (interquartile range [IQR] 25–43 min) to 33 min (IQR 23–39 min, p = 0.03) post‐intervention achieved by simulation‐experienced stroke teams. Concerning EVT, we found significantly shorter door‐to‐groin times in patients who were treated by teams with simulation experience as compared to simulation‐naive teams in the post‐interventional phase (−21 min, simulation‐naive: 95 min, IQR 69–111 vs. simulation‐experienced: 74 min, IQR 51–92, p = 0.04).Conclusion: An intervention combining workflow refinement and simulation‐based stroke team training has the potential to improve process times in acute stroke care.

Background and purpose: Reperfusion treatment in patients presenting with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and minor neurological deficits is still a matter of debate. We aimed to compare minor stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) or IVT alone.Methods: Patients enrolled in the German Stroke Registry–Endovascular Treatment (GSR‐ET) and the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke–International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry (SITS‐ISTR) between June 2015 and December 2019 were analyzed. Minor stroke was defined as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≤5, and LVO as occlusion of the internal carotid, carotid‐T, middle cerebral, basilar, vertebral or posterior cerebral arteries. GSR‐ET and SITS‐ISTR IVT‐treated patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity‐score (PS) matching. The primary outcome was good functional outcome at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2).Results: A total of 272 GSR‐ET patients treated with EVT and IVT (age 68.6 ± 14.0 years, 43.4% female, NIHSS score 4 [interquartile range 2–5]) were compared to 272 IVT‐treated SITS‐ISTR patients (age 69.4 ± 13.7, 43.4% female, NIHSS score 4 [2–5]). Good functional outcome was seen in 77.0% versus 82.9% (p = 0.119), mortality in 5.9% versus 7.9% (p = 0.413), and intracranial hemorrhage in 8.8% versus 12.5% (p = 0.308) of patients in the GSR‐ET versus the SITS‐ISTR IVT group, respectively. In a second PS‐matched analysis, 624 GSR‐ET patients (IVT rate 56.7%) and 624 SITS‐ISTR patients (IVT rate 100%), good outcome was more often observed in the SITS‐ISTR patients (68.2% vs. 80.9%; p < 0.001), and IVT independently predicted good outcome (odds ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.43–3.28).Conclusions: Our study suggests similar effectiveness of IVT alone compared to EVT with or without IVT in minor stroke patients. There is an urgent need for randomized controlled trials on this topic.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Woven EndoBridge 17 has recently been introduced to the market for facilitated endovascular treatment of small bifurcation aneurysms (≤7 mm) with low-profile microcatheters. We compared the Woven EndoBridge 17 with its predecessor versions in terms of procedural safety and feasibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter review of aneurysms ranging from 3 to 7 mm treated with the Woven EndoBridge between 2011 and 2019. Aneurysm characteristics, procedural parameters, and complications were retrospectively compared between treatment with the Woven EndoBridge 17 and a control group that was treated with its predecessor versions, using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Thirty-eight aneurysms treated with a Woven EndoBridge 17 (mean size, 4.9 ± 1.5 mm) and 70 treated with a predecessor version of the Woven EndoBridge 17 (mean size, 5.6 ± 1.4 mm) were included. The predecessor version of the Woven EndoBridge 17 had a higher failure rate (10.3%) than the Woven EndoBridge 17 (0%, P = .05). Additional stent placement was performed more often with the predecessor version of the Woven EndoBridge 17 (10.0%) than with the Woven EndoBridge 17 (2.6%, adjusted P = .005). The predecessor version of the Woven EndoBridge 17 was associated with a higher thromboembolic event rate (14.3%) than the Woven EndoBridge 17 (5.3%, adjusted P = .002). Neurologic complications (Woven EndoBridge 17: 2.6%; predecessor version of the Woven EndoBridge 17: 2.9%, adjusted P = 1.0) and immediate complete aneurysm occlusion rates (Woven EndoBridge 17: 57.9%; predecessor version of the Woven EndoBridge 17: 54.3%, adjusted P = .21) did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the Woven EndoBridge 17 was associated with a potentially lower thromboembolic event rate than the predecessor version of the Woven EndoBridge 17, without compromising the immediate aneurysm occlusion rate. Long-term clinical and angiographic outcome analysis will be necessary to draw a definite conclusion.