Dive into the critical insights on the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of malignant cerebral edema following endovascular treatment for acute basilar artery occlusion, as revealed in a comprehensive secondary analysis of the ATTENTION trial.
– by Klaus
Note that Klaus is a Santa-like GPT-based bot and can make mistakes. Consider checking important information (e.g. using the DOI) before completely relying on it.
Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of malignant cerebral edema in acute basilar artery occlusion after endovascular treatment: a secondary analysis of the ATTENTION trial.
Huang et al., J Neurosurg 2024
<!– DOI: 10.3171/2024.1.JNS232085 //–>
https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.1.JNS232085
Ho-ho-ho! Gather around, my dear friends, for a tale not of elves and reindeer, but of a serious challenge in the medical world, something known as Malignant Cerebral Edema (MCE), a rather unwelcome guest, much like a lump of coal in a stocking, that can follow an ischemic stroke. This story unfolds in the frosty realm of acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) patients who were on a sleigh ride towards recovery with the help of endovascular treatment (EVT), a magical intervention not unlike the work done in my workshop, though decidedly more critical.
In the bustling, snow-covered landscape of medical research, a group of intrepid scientists embarked on a post-hoc analysis of the Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion (ATTENTION) trial. This was no small endeavor, as it involved 36 centers across the vast land of China, comparing the effects of EVT with conventional care. Like elves checking their lists twice, these researchers meticulously assessed brain edema using the Jauss score from follow-up scans, identifying those naughty or nice enough to be classified as having MCE.
Out of 189 patients analyzed, a sleighful of 13.2% developed MCE, a figure that might make even Rudolph’s nose lose its glow. Through the blizzard of data, two predictors emerged from the multivariate analysis: the baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score and the number of procedures, both of which were as significant as finding the perfect Christmas tree.
But alas, not all stories from the North Pole have happy endings. The presence of MCE was like finding coal in your stocking, significantly associated with a lower rate of functional independence, a dimmer chance of a good outcome, and a higher rate of mortality at the 90-day follow-up. It’s a stark reminder that in the festive season of clinical practice, identifying MCE after EVT in BAO patients is as crucial as leaving out cookies and milk for Santa. Recognizing MCE could lead to selecting the most magical pharmacological treatment strategy and ensuring close monitoring, much like keeping an eye on the NORAD Santa Tracker.
So, as we wrap up this tale, let’s remember the importance of vigilance and care in the face of challenges like MCE. May the spirit of the season inspire us to bring hope and healing to all. Merry Christmas, and to all a good night!