Differences in Acute Ischemic Stroke Management and Prognosis between Multiple Large-Vessel Occlusion and Single Large-Vessel Occlusion: Subanalysis of the RESCUE-Japan Registry 2

Introduction: The management and prognosis of acute ischemic stroke due to multiple large-vessel occlusion (LVO) (MLVO) are not well scrutinized. We therefore aimed to elucidate the differences in patient characteristics and prognosis of MLVO and single LVO (SLVO).

Methods: The Recovery by Endovascular Salvage for Cerebral Ultra-Acute Embolism Japan Registry 2 (RESCUE-Japan Registry 2) enrolled 2,420 consecutive patients with acute LVO who were admitted within 24 h of onset. We compared patient prognosis between MLVO and SLVO in the favorable outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤2, and in mortality at 90 days by adjusting for confounders. Additionally, we stratified MLVO patients into tandem occlusion and different territories, according to the occlusion site information and also examined their characteristics.

Results: Among the 2,399 patients registered, 124 (5.2%) had MLVO. Although there was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of hypertension as a risk factor, the mean arterial pressure on admission was significantly higher in MLVO (115 vs. 107 mm Hg, p = 0.004). MLVO in different territories was more likely to be cardioembolic (42.1 vs. 10.4%, p = 0.0002), while MLVO in tandem occlusion was more likely to be atherothrombotic (39.5 vs. 81.3%, p < 0.0001). Among MLVO, tandem occlusion had a significantly longer onset-to-door time than different territories (200 vs. 95 min, p = 0.02); accordingly, the tissue plasminogen activator administration was significantly less in tandem occlusion (22.4 vs. 47.9%, p = 0.003). However, interestingly, the endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) was performed significantly more in tandem occlusion (63.2 vs. 41.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-5.0). The type of MLVO was the only and significant factor associated with EVT performance in multivariate analysis. The favorable outcomes were obtained less in MLVO than in SLVO (28.2 vs. 37.1%; aOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76). The mortality rate was not significantly different between MLVO and SLVO (8.9 vs. 11.1%, p = 0.42).

Discussion/conclusion: The prognosis of MLVO was significantly worse than that of SLVO. In different territories, we might be able to consider more aggressive EVT interventions.