Abstract
Context: Despite overwhelming evidence for endovascular therapy in anterior circulation ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion, data regarding the treatment of acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) are still equivocal. The BASICS trial failed to show an advantage of endovascular therapy (EVT) over best medical treatment (BMT). In contrast, data from the recently published BASILAR registry showed a better outcome in patients receiving EVT. Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of EVT plus BMT vs. BMT alone in acute BAO. Methods: We analyzed the clinical course and short-term outcomes of patients with radiologically confirmed BAO dichotomized by BMT plus EVT or BMT only as documented in a state-wide prospective registry of consecutive patients hospitalized due to acute stroke. The primary endpoint was a favorable functional outcome (mRS 0-3) at hospital discharge assessed as common odds ratio using binary logistic regression. Secondary subgroup analyses and propensity score matching were added. Safety outcomes included mortality, the rate of intracerebral hemorrhages, and complications during hospitalization. Results: We included 403 patients with acute BAO (2017-2019). A total of 270 patients (67%) were treated with BMT plus EVT and 133 patients (33%) were treated with BMT only. A favorable outcome (mRS 0-3) was observed in 33.8% of the BMT and 26.7% of the BMT plus EVT group [OR.770, CI (0.50-1.2)]. Subgroup analyses for patients with a NIHSS score > 10 at admission to the hospital revealed a benefit from EVT [OR 3.05, CI (1.03-9.01)]. Conclusions: In this prospective, quasi population-based registry of patients hospitalized with acute BAO, BMT plus EVT was not superior to BMT alone. Nevertheless, our results suggest that severely affected BAO patients are more likely to benefit from EVT.