← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

PLATO

Endovascular Versus Medical Management of Posterior Cerebral Artery Occlusion Stroke: The PLATO Study

Year of Publication: 2023

Authors: Thanh N. Nguyen, Muhammad M. Qureshi, Davide Strambo, ..., Simon Nagel

Journal: Stroke

Citation: Stroke. 2023;54:1708–1717. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.042674

Link: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.042674


Clinical Question

Does endovascular therapy improve clinical outcomes compared to medical management in patients with isolated posterior cerebral artery occlusion presenting within 24 hours?

Bottom Line

EVT did not improve overall disability by ordinal mRS shift or functional independence (mRS 0–2) compared to MM in isolated PCA occlusion. However, EVT was associated with higher odds of excellent outcome (mRS 0–1), early NIHSS improvement, and complete vision recovery, at the cost of significantly higher sICH and mortality rates.

Major Points

  • No difference in 90-day ordinal mRS shift between EVT and MM (IPTW aOR 1.13, P=0.41).
  • EVT associated with higher odds of ≥2-point NIHSS decrease (aOR 1.84, P=0.0001).
  • EVT associated with higher likelihood of excellent outcome (mRS 0–1; aOR 1.50, P=0.018).
  • Functional independence (mRS 0–2) similar between groups (51.0% vs 53.3%).
  • Complete vision recovery significantly greater in EVT (70.2% vs 42.9%; P=0.002).
  • sICH 3-fold higher with EVT (6.2% vs 1.7%; IPTW aOR 3.11, P=0.014).
  • Mortality higher with EVT (10.1% vs 5.0%; MV aOR 2.29, P=0.004; IPTW aOR 1.67, P=0.082).
  • Successful recanalization (mTICI ≥2b) achieved in 79.3% of EVT patients.
  • Baseline visual field deficit present in 68.7% of patients overall.
  • sICH rates were similar between P1 and P2 EVT patients (7% vs 6%), suggesting distal location does not explain hemorrhagic risk.
  • Of 34 patients with sICH, 44.1% died.
  • IVT administered in 42.9% overall with no difference between groups.

Design

Study Type: International, multicenter, retrospective cohort (case-control) study

Randomization:

Blinding: Unblinded; 90-day mRS collected by site investigators/coordinators who could have been unblinded to treatment

Enrollment Period: January 2015 to August 2022

Follow-up Duration: 90 days

Centers: 27

Countries: USA, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece

Sample Size: 1023

Analysis: Mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression (ordinal mRS), mixed-effects logistic regression (binary outcomes), IPTW with stabilized weights. Adjusted for age, sex, baseline NIHSS, year of treatment, prestroke mRS, hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, IVT, pc-ASPECTS, occlusion location. Complete case analysis without imputation. SAS 9.4.


Inclusion Criteria

  • Age ≥18 years
  • Ischemic stroke attributable to isolated PCA occlusion (P1, P2, P3, P4, fetal, or bilateral)
  • Presentation within 24 hours of symptom onset
  • Prestroke mRS score 0–3

Exclusion Criteria

  • Concomitant basilar artery occlusion
  • Multiple vessel occlusion other than PCA territory

Arms

FieldEVTControl
InterventionEndovascular therapy (stent retriever, aspiration, or IA thrombolysis) ± IV thrombolysisMedical management ± IV thrombolysis, per local standards
Duration

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
Co-primary: (1) 90-day mRS ordinal shift; (2) ≥2-point decrease in NIHSS at 24 hours or dischargePrimary(1) Median mRS 2 [1–3]; (2) 270/617 (43.8%)(1) Median mRS 2 [1–4]; (2) 224/342 (65.5%)(1) IPTW P=0.413; (2) IPTW P=0.0001
Excellent outcome (mRS 0–1 at 90 days)Secondary155/580 (26.7%)109/337 (32.3%)IPTW aOR 1.50 (95% CI 1.07–2.09)P=0.018
Functional independence (mRS 0–2 at 90 days)Secondary309/580 (53.3%)172/337 (51.0%)IPTW aOR 1.06 (95% CI 0.78–1.46)P=0.696
Complete vision recoverySecondary73/170 (42.9%)40/57 (70.2%)P=0.002
Median NIHSS change (admission minus discharge)Secondary1 [IQR 0–3]3.5 [IQR 0–7]P<0.0001
Symptomatic ICHAdverse11/644 (1.7%)23/374 (6.2%)IPTW aOR 3.11 (95% CI 1.26–7.65); MV aOR 4.10 (95% CI 1.93–8.74)IPTW P=0.014; MV P=0.0003
MortalityAdverse32/645 (5.0%)38/377 (10.1%)IPTW aOR 1.67 (95% CI 0.94–2.98); MV aOR 2.29 (95% CI 1.30–4.06)IPTW P=0.082; MV P=0.004
Any ICH (Heidelberg)Adverse95/529 (18.0%)72/305 (23.5%)P=0.059
Fatal ICHAdverse4/616 (0.65%)7/345 (2.1%)P=0.061

Subgroup Analysis

IVT vs EVT subgroup analysis showed concordant results with EVT vs MM analysis, except the co-primary endpoint of ≥2-point NIHSS decrease lost significance. sICH was similar between P1 and P2 segment EVT patients (7% vs 6%; P=0.72). Of patients with sICH, 44.1% (15/34) died. Perfusion mismatch >20% was present in 94.1% of EVT vs 75.7% of MM patients (P<0.0001).


Criticisms

  • Retrospective, non-randomized design with inherent selection bias.
  • Unblinded outcome assessment (mRS, NIHSS).
  • EVT group had higher baseline NIHSS and more proximal occlusions, creating confounding despite IPTW/MV adjustment.
  • Vision recovery data missing in substantial proportion of patients with visual field defects (only 227/611 had follow-up data).
  • Cognitive outcomes not assessed; PCA strokes can cause significant cognitive impairment.
  • pc-ASPECTS was designed for basilar artery occlusion, not isolated PCA occlusion.
  • No adjustment for multiple testing across secondary endpoints.
  • Higher transfer rates in EVT group may introduce lead-time bias.
  • No core lab for imaging adjudication.
  • Complete case analysis without imputation for missing data.
  • 3-fold higher sICH and doubled mortality in EVT group raise significant safety concerns for routine EVT in PCA occlusion.

Funding

None

Based on: PLATO (Stroke, 2023)

Authors: Thanh N. Nguyen, Muhammad M. Qureshi, Davide Strambo, ..., Simon Nagel

Citation: Stroke. 2023;54:1708–1717. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.042674

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.