This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Dr. Siegler and colleagues evaluated outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) vs medical management in a multinational cohort of 554 patients with a prestroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 2–4 and anterior circulation large vessel occlusion, treated 6–24 hours from the time last seen well. They found that MT was associated with higher odds of return to prestroke mRS by 90 days. In response, Drs. Bruno and Nichols noted that there is no clear guidance for scoring a baseline or prestroke mRS (indeed, the mRS was originally intended for evaluating poststroke outcomes). They also contend that scoring a 90-day mRS in patients with prestroke disability is not clearly defined. Responding to these comments, the authors agree that the prestroke mRS has important limitations, but point to the fact that this measure has been used in various studies, including in the selection of patients for interventional stroke trials. They correctly note that current guidelines to score the poststroke mRS are intended simply to score how the patient is functioning at the time in question, rather than making judgments about how they are doing in relation to their prestroke status. Overall, this exchange demonstrates important nuances in the assessment of prestroke status and poststroke outcomes in patients with prestroke disability—a population that has been poorly represented in acute stroke trials.
Dr. Siegler and colleagues evaluated outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) vs medical management in a multinational cohort of 554 patients with a prestroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 2–4 and anterior circulation large vessel occlusion, treated 6–24 hours from the time last seen well. They found that MT was associated with higher odds of return to prestroke mRS by 90 days. In response, Drs. Bruno and Nichols noted that there is no clear guidance for scoring a baseline or prestroke mRS (indeed, the mRS was originally intended for evaluating poststroke outcomes). They also contend that scoring a 90-day mRS in patients with prestroke disability is not clearly defined. Responding to these comments, the authors agree that the prestroke mRS has important limitations, but point to the fact that this measure has been used in various studies, including in the selection of patients for interventional stroke trials. They correctly note that current guidelines to score the poststroke mRS are intended simply to score how the patient is functioning at the time in question, rather than making judgments about how they are doing in relation to their prestroke status. Overall, this exchange demonstrates important nuances in the assessment of prestroke status and poststroke outcomes in patients with prestroke disability—a population that has been poorly represented in acute stroke trials.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2023 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
