DIRECT ANGIO
(2026)Objective
To assess the safety and efficacy of direct transfer to angiography suite (DTAS) versus conventional pathway (imaging first) in patients with acute severe neurological deficit highly suggestive of ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (ASND-LVO).
Study Summary
• Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage increased in DTAS group: 5/34 (15%) vs 0/42 (0%); adjusted OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.28-1406)
• Functional independence (mRS 0-2 at 90 days): 20/56 (36%) DTAS vs 22/53 (42%) conventional; adjusted OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.32-1.69)
• All-cause mortality at 90 days: 10/56 (18%) DTAS vs 6/53 (11%) conventional; adjusted OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.52-5.55)
• DTAS did not improve functional outcomes despite reducing admission-to-puncture time by 38 min and onset-to-reperfusion by 37 min
Intervention
Direct transfer to angiography suite with cone-beam CT to rule out haemorrhage, followed by catheter cerebral angiogram and endovascular treatment if large vessel occlusion confirmed, bypassing baseline cerebral imaging.
Inclusion Criteria
Adults 18-85 years with acute severe neurological deficit highly suggestive of ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (ASND-LVO), defined as unilateral motor deficit with NIHSS motor score ≥5 plus cortical symptom score ≥1, directly admitted to endovascular-capable centre within 5 hours of witnessed symptom onset, without previous neuroimaging.
Study Design
Arms: Direct transfer to angiography suite (DTAS) (n=57) vs Conventional pathway with imaging first (n=58)
Patients per Arm: DTAS n=57; Conventional n=58
Outcome
• Symptomatic ICH significantly increased with DTAS: 15% vs 0%; adjusted OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.28-1406)
• All-cause mortality: 18% DTAS vs 11% conventional; adjusted OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.52-5.55) - not significant
• Trial stopped early for safety reasons on Dec 1, 2023
Bottom Line
Direct transfer to angiography suite (DTAS) for patients with suspected large vessel occlusion stroke does NOT improve functional outcomes at 90 days and is associated with a significantly higher risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. The trial was stopped early for safety reasons. Clinicians should continue to use the conventional pathway with baseline imaging before considering endovascular treatment.
Major Points
- First multicentre RCT comparing DTAS vs conventional pathway in patients without previous imaging
- Trial stopped early on Dec 1, 2023 for safety concerns after interim analysis showed increased symptomatic ICH in DTAS group
- DTAS reduced admission-to-puncture time by 38 minutes and onset-to-reperfusion by 37 minutes
- Despite faster workflow, DTAS did not improve 90-day functional independence (36% vs 42%)
- Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was significantly increased with DTAS (15% vs 0%, adjusted OR 11.0)
- All-cause mortality numerically higher with DTAS but not statistically significant (18% vs 11%)
- Findings raise safety concerns for bypassing baseline imaging in patients primarily admitted to endovascular-capable centres
- Small sample size due to early termination limits precision of effect estimates
Study Design
- Study Type
- Pragmatic, investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial with masked outcome assessment (PROBE design)
- Randomization
- Yes
- Blinding
- Open-label with blinded endpoint assessment; neuroimaging data centrally assessed by core laboratory masked to trial groups
- Sample Size
- 115
- Follow-up
- 90 days (with 1-year follow-up mentioned)
- Centers
- 10
- Countries
- France
Primary Outcome
Definition: Functional independence defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0 to 2
| Control | Intervention | HR/OR | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22/53 (42%) | 20/56 (36%) | 0.73 (0.32-1.69) |
Limitations & Criticisms
- Trial stopped early for safety reasons resulting in small sample size (115 patients) that limits precision of effect estimates
- Wide confidence intervals on primary safety outcome (OR 11.0, 95% CI 1.28-1406) reflect imprecision
- Open-label design with potential for bias in management decisions, although outcome assessment was masked
- Cost-utility assessment could not be performed due to premature termination
- Discrepancy in denominators (n=34 vs n=42 for symptomatic ICH analysis vs n=56 vs n=53 for primary outcome) suggests post-randomisation exclusions
- Generalisability may be limited to high-volume comprehensive stroke centres
Citation
Lancet Neurol 2026; 25: 346-56