Background: The standard reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is considered to be thrombolysis, but its application is limited by the high risk of hemorrhagic transformation (HT). This study aimed to analyze risk factors and predictors of early HT after reperfusion therapy (intravenous thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy). Material and methods: Patients with acute ischemic stroke who developed HT in the first 24 h after receiving rtPA thrombolysis or performing mechanical thrombectomy were retrospectively reviewed. They were divided into two groups, respectively, the early-HT group and the without-early-HT group based on cranial computed tomography performed at 24 h, regardless of the type of hemorrhagic transformation. Results: A total of 211 consecutive patients were enrolled in this study. Among these patients, 20.37% (n = 43; age: median 70.00 years; 51.2% males) had early HT. Multivariate analysis of independent risk factors associated with early HT found that male gender increased the risk by 2.7-fold, the presence of baseline high blood pressure by 2.4-fold, and high glycemic values by 1.2-fold. Higher values of NIHSS at 24 h increased the risk of hemorrhagic transformation by 1.18-fold, while higher values of ASPECTS at 24 h decreased the risk of hemorrhagic transformation by 0.6-fold. Conclusions: In our study, male gender, baseline high blood pressure, and high glycemic values, along with higher values of NIHSS were associated with the increased risk of early HT. Furthermore, the identification of early-HT predictors is critical in patients with AIS for the clinical outcome after reperfusion therapy. Predictive models to be used in the future to select more careful patients with a low risk of early HT need to be developed in order to minimize the impact of HT associated with reperfusion techniques.

Background and objectives: Although the intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), only a small proportion of stroke patients receive this drug. The low administration rate is mainly due to the delayed presentation of patients to the emergency department (ED) or the lack of a stroke team/unit in most of the hospitals. Thus, the aim of this study is to analyze ED time targets and the rate of rt-PA intravenous administration after the initial admission of patients with AIS in an ED from a traditional healthcare center (without a neurologist or stroke team/unit). Methods: To analyze which factors influence the administration of rt-PA, we split the general sample (n = 202) into two groups: group No rt-PA (n = 137) and group rt-PA (n = 65). This is based on the performing or no intravenous thrombolysis. Results: Analyzing ED time targets for all samples, we found that the median onset-to-ED door time was 180 min (IQR, 120–217.5 min), door-to-physician time was 4 min (IQR, 3–7 min), door-to-CT time was 52 min (IQR, 48–55 min), and door-in-door-out time was 61 min (IQR, 59–65 min). ED time targets such as door-to-physician time (p = 0.245), door-to-CT time (p = 0.219), door-in-door-out time (p = 0.24), NIHSS at admission to the Neurology department (p = 0.405), or NIHSS after 24 h (p = 0.9) did not have a statistically significant effect on the administration or no rt-PA treatment in patients included in our study. Only the highest door-to-CT time was statistically significantly correlated with the death outcome. Conclusion: In our study, the iv rt-PA administration rate was 32.18%. A statistically significant correlation between the highest door-to-CT time and death outcome was found.

Background and objectives: To minimize stroke-related deaths and maximize the likelihood of cerebral reperfusion, medical professionals developed the “code stroke” emergency protocol, which allows for the prompt evaluation of patients with acute ischemic stroke symptoms in pre-hospital care and the emergency department (ED). This research will outline our experience in implementing the stroke code protocol for acute ischemic stroke patients and its impact on door-to-needle time (DTN) in the ED. Methods: Our study included patients with a “code stroke alert” upon arrival at the emergency department. The final sample of this study consisted of 258 patients eligible for intravenous (IV) thrombolysis with an onset-to-door time < 4.5 h. ED admissions were categorized into two distinct groups: “day shift” (from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.) (n = 178) and “night shift” (from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.) (n = 80) groups. Results: An analysis of ED time targets showed an increased median during the day shift for onset-to-ED door time of 310 min (IQR, 190–340 min), for door-to-physician (emergency medicine doctor) time of 5 min (IQR, 3–9 min), for door-to-physician (emergency medicine doctor) time of 5 min (IQR, 3–9 min), and for door-to-physician (neurologist) time of 7 min (IQR, 5–10 min), also during the day shift. During the night shift, an increased median was found for door-to-CT time of 21 min (IQR, 16.75–23 min), for door-to-CT results of 40 min (IQR, 38–43 min), and for door-to-needle time of 57.5 min (IQR, 46.25–60 min). Astonishingly, only 17.83% (n = 46) of these patients received intravenous thrombolysis, and the proportion of patients with thrombolysis was significantly higher during the night shift (p = 0.044). A logistic regression analysis considering the door-to-needle time (minutes) as the dependent variable demonstrated that onset-to-ED time (p < 0.001) and door-to-physician (emergency medicine physicians) time (p = 0.021) are predictors for performing thrombolysis in our study. Conclusions: This study identified higher door-to-CT and door-to-emergency medicine physician times associated with an increased DTN, highlighting further opportunities to improve acute stroke care in the emergency department. Further, door-to-CT and door-to-CT results showed statistically significant increases during the night shift.

Background: Rapid identification and treatment of stroke are essential for the patient. Our objective was to determine the diagnostic utility of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) in the emergency department to identify and differentiate acute stroke within 4.5 h of symptom onset in patients admitted with a stroke code alert. Methods: This study included 85 patients with a “code stroke alert” upon arrival at the emergency department. Individuals were grouped in two categories: patients with stroke (including 69 patients) and patients without stroke (including 16 patients). The research was conducted at the Emergency Municipal Clinical Hospital in Timișoara, Romania, the county’s second-largest hospital, which lacks a neurologist and a dedicated stroke unit. Results: No significant differences were observed between the two groups (with stroke and without stroke) regarding most demographic or admission parameters. Significant differences were observed for the biomarkers GFAP (142.91 ± 102.19 pg/mL in patients with acute stroke vs. 37.76 ± 19.92 pg/mL in patients without stroke (p < 0.001)) and UCH-L1 (1307.68 ± 967.54 pg/mL in stroke patients vs. 189.81 ± 92.69 pg/mL in patients without stroke (p < 0.001)). Within the stroke group, 37 patients had acute ischemic stroke, while 32 patients were diagnosed with hemorrhagic stroke based on brain CT imaging. GFAP achieved an accuracy of 94.2% for differentiating hemorrhagic from ischemic stroke, with a cut-off value of 77.15 pg/mL. Conclusions: GFAP excellently differentiated acute stroke from stroke mimics, with high sensitivity, perfect specificity, and strong predictive values. Integrating GFAP and UCH-L1 measurements into emergency protocols may enhance stroke diagnosis, optimize patient triage, and ultimately improve outcomes by facilitating the faster initiation of appropriate therapies.

Study design: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) via the transbrachial approach (TBA) is a very rare option used in cases of patients with aortic pathologies and acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to the insufficient evidence in the literature, the difficulty from a technical point of view and the result of this technique influenced by the complications that frequently accompany it. Background: Only a few cases of patients with aortic pathologies and acute ischemic stroke where MT via TBA were reported in the literature, and its application in the emergency management of AIS has still not been dealt with in detail. Objectives: Out of a need to clarify and clearly emphasize the effectiveness of this approach in emergency MT via TBA in patients with AIS and aortic pathologies, this literature review and case report has the following objectives: the first one is the presentation of an emergency MT via transbrachial approach performed in a 44-year-old patient with AIS and diagnosed aortic coarctation during transfemural approach (TFA), with successful reperfusion in our department and the second one is to review the cases reports of patients with different aortic pathologies and AIS reperfusion therapy performed by MT via TBA from the literature. Methods: A total of nine cases (one personal case and eight published cases) were revised in terms of aortic pathologies type, reperfusion therapy type, and the complication of both mechanical thrombectomy and local transbrachial approach. Results: Mechanical thrombectomy through the transbrachial approach was the first choice in more than half of these cases (55.55%, n = 5 cases) in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in the presence of previously diagnosed aortic pathologies. In one-third of all cases (33.33%, n = 3, our case and 2 case reports from the literature), the transbrachial approach was chosen after attempting to advance the guiding catheter through the transfemoral approach and intraprocedural diagnosis of aortic pathology. In only one case, after an ultrasound evaluation of the radial artery that showed a monophasic flow, MT was performed via TBA. Local transbrachial complication was reported in one case, and in two other cases, it was not stated if there were such complications. Hemorrhagic transformation of AIS was reported in two cases that underwent MT-only cerebral reperfusion via TBA, one with acute aortic dissection type A and our case of previously undiagnosed aortic coarctation. In the cases in whom short and long-term follow-up was reported, the outcome of treatment, which was not exclusively endovascular (77.77% cases with only MT and 33.33% with association of first thrombolysis and after MT), was good (six from nine patients). In two case reports, the outcomes were not stated, and one patient died after a long hospitalization in the intensive care unit from respiratory complications (our patient). Conclusions: Being a clinical emergency, acute ischemic stroke requires urgent medical intervention. In patients with aortic pathologies, where acute ischemic stroke emergency care is a challenge, mechanical thrombectomy via the transbrachial approach is a safe alternative method for cerebral reperfusion.

Background and objectives: In the era of personalized medicine, standard protocols regarding the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) focus on time targets alone without tailoring the protocol to the specific patient and hospital characteristics to increase IV thrombolysis rates and improve outcomes for these patients by considering organizational differences and patient-related factors that influence adherence to target times at the emergency department level. With this in mind, we evaluate the effect of achieving ED time targets from standard protocol and patient-related risk factors on the intravenous (IV) thrombolysis rate in patients with AIS in the therapeutic window. Materials and Methods: For our research, we enrolled people who arrived at the ED with signs of recent AIS with an onset of less than 4.5 h. Initially, 355 patients were included in the study, but through careful screening, only 258 were considered eligible to participate. Of the final group of 258 patients, only 46 received intravenous thrombolysis treatment. Results: In our study, when we are analyzing ED times in patients admitted with stroke symptoms in the therapeutic window, we found statistically significantly decreased ED times for patients that performed IV thrombolysis compared to patients not performing as follows: a median of 100 min in onset-to-ED door time (p < 0.001), a door-to-physician time (ED doctor) of 4 min (p = 0.009), door-to-blood-samples of 5 min (p = 0.026), a door-to-CT time of 15.5 min (p = 0.009), and door-to-CT results of 37 min (p < 0.001). In addition, patients who received intravenous thrombolysis were found to be significantly older (p < 0.001), with lower height and weight (p < 0.001 for both) and lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores (9 ± 4.94 vs. 13.85 ± 2.41, p < 0.001). The logistic regression analysis indicated that the onset-to-ED time (p < 0.001) and the door-to-physician time (p = 0.014) for emergency medicine physicians are significant predictors of the likelihood of administering thrombolysis. By analyzing the impact of comorbidities, we observed that dyslipidemia, chronic arterial hypertension, and diabetes mellitus are significant predictive factors for performing IV thrombolysis (the presence of dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus are predictive factors for performing IV thrombolysis, while the presence of arterial hypertension is not). Conclusions: The ED time targets that significantly influenced IV thrombolysis in our study were the onset-to-ED door time and the time it takes for the ED doctor to assess the AIS patient (door-to-physician time). The IV thrombolysis rate for these patients was 17.83%, lower than expected despite achieving most ED time targets, with the presence of chronic arterial hypertension as a significant predictive patient-related factor for not performing it. Even though our reported hospital’s thrombolysis rate is favorable compared to international reports, there is always room for improvement. Based on our study results, it is necessary that new protocols to customized standard protocols and ED time targets for increasing IV thrombolysis rate in patients with AIS in the therapeutic window, focusing more on patient-related factors and type of hospitals, granting personalized medicine its right. Based on our study results, it is necessary that new protocols customize standard protocols and ED time targets for increasing IV thrombolysis rate in patients with AIS in the therapeutic window, focusing more on patient-related factors and type of hospitals, granting personalized medicine its right.