The value of administering intravenous alteplase before endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke has not been studied extensively, particularly in non-Asian populations. We performed an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial in Europe involving patients with stroke who presented directly to a hospital that was capable of providing EVT and who were eligible for intravenous alteplase and EVT. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVT alone or intravenous alteplase followed by EVT (the standard of care). The primary end point was functional outcome on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no disability] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. We assessed the superiority of EVT alone over alteplase plus EVT, as well as noninferiority by a margin of 0.8 for the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio of the two trial groups. Death from any cause and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were the main safety end points. The analysis included 539 patients. The median score on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 5) with EVT alone and 2 (interquartile range, 2 to 5) with alteplase plus EVT. The adjusted common odds ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.15; P=0.28), which showed neither superiority nor noninferiority of EVT alone. Mortality was 20.5% with EVT alone and 15.8% with alteplase plus EVT (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.30). Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 5.9% and 5.3% of the patients in the respective groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.81). In a randomized trial involving European patients, EVT alone was neither superior nor noninferior to intravenous alteplase followed by EVT with regard to disability outcome at 90 days after stroke. The incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke consortium and others; MR CLEAN–NO IV ISRCTN number, ISRCTN80619088.)

Introduction: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion has a poor prognosis if treated by intravenous thrombolysis. Intra-arterial (IA) treatment is a promising alternative. However, its effectiveness is still unproven. Methods: We collected all publications describing results of IA treatment in acute ICA occlusions. All studies with 10 patients or more providing data on clinical outcome were included. We pooled the results by occlusion site (intracranial, extracranial or tandem occlusions) and treatment method, using recanalization, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, mortality and favorable clinical outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) as outcome measures. Results: 32 studies totaling 1107 patients were included. In the population with intracranial ICA occlusion, recanalization (69% vs 38%, p<0.001) and favorable outcome (34% vs 12%, p<0.001) rates were significantly higher for mechanical thrombectomy than for IA thrombolysis. In the population with extracranial ICA occlusion, stenting resulted in a higher recanalization rate (87% vs 48%, p=0.001) and favorable outcome rate (68% vs 15%, p<0.001) and lower mortality (18% vs 41%, p=0.048) than IA thrombolysis. In the tandem occlusion population, a statistically significant lower death rate was found for the group treated with IA thrombolysis only compared with the groups with any mechanical treatment of the intracranial occlusion (0% vs 34%, p=0.002 and 0% vs 33%, p=0.001). Conclusions: This review shows that, for patients with AIS due to an extracranial and/or intracranial ICA occlusion, stenting and mechanical thrombectomy are associated with higher recanalization rates and improved functional outcomes compared with IA thrombolysis.

Medium vessel occlusions (MeVOs, ie, M2, M3, A2, A3, P2, and P3 segment occlusions) are increasingly recognized as a target for endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke. It is important to note that not all MeVOs are equal. Primary MeVOs occur de novo with the underlying mechanisms being very similar to large vessel occlusion strokes. Secondary MeVOs arise from large vessel occlusions through clot migration or fragmentation, either spontaneously or following treatment with intravenous thrombolysis or endovascular treatment. Currently, there are little data on the prevalence, management, and prognosis of acute ischemic stroke due to secondary MeVOs. This type of stroke is, however, likely to become more relevant in the future as indications for endovascular treatment continue to broaden. In this article, we describe different types of secondary MeVOs, imaging findings associated with them, challenges related to the diagnosis of secondary MeVOs, and their potential implications for treatment strategies and clinical outcomes.

Background: We evaluated data from all patients in the Netherlands who underwent endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in the past 3.5 years, to identify nationwide trends in time to treatment and procedural success, and assess their effect on clinical outcomes. Methods: We included patients with proximal occlusions of the anterior circulation from the second and first cohorts of the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) Registry (March 2014 to June 2016; June 2016 to November 2017, respectively). We compared workflow times and rates of successful reperfusion (defined as an extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2B-3) between cohorts and chronological quartiles (all included patients stratified in chronological quartiles of intervention dates to create equally sized groups over the study period). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to assess differences in the primary outcome (ordinal modified Rankin Scale at 90 days). Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts (second cohort n=1692, first cohort n=1488) except for higher age, poorer collaterals, and less signs of early ischemia on computed tomography in the second cohort. Time from stroke onset to groin puncture and reperfusion were shorter in the second cohort (median 185 versus 210 minutes; P <0.001 and 236 versus 270 minutes; P <0.001, respectively). Successful reperfusion was achieved more often in the second than in the first cohort (72% versus 66%; P <0.001). Functional outcome significantly improved (adjusted common odds ratio 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07–1.40]). This effect was attenuated by adjustment for time from onset to reperfusion (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98–1.28]) and successful reperfusion (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.99–1.30]). Outcomes were consistent in the analysis per chronological quartile. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in routine clinical practice have improved over the past years, likely resulting from improved workflow times and higher successful reperfusion rates.

Intravenous thrombolytics and endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke have evolved in parallel. However, the best approach to combine these reperfusion therapies in patients eligible for both strategies remains uncertain. Initial randomized trials of endovascular thrombectomy included administration of intravenous thrombolytics to all eligible patients. However, whether that is of net benefit has been questioned and parallels drawn with treatment of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, where intravenous thrombolytics are only given if first medical contact to percutaneous intervention is expected to be >90 minutes. Six randomized trials of a direct thrombectomy approach versus intravenous thrombolytics followed by endovascular thrombectomy have now reported their results. With exception of a minority of patients in one trial, the trials all used alteplase rather than potentially more effective tenecteplase. This review examines the current state of evidence and implications for clinical practice. Importantly, these trials only apply to patients who present to a hospital with immediate access to endovascular thrombectomy and are not relevant to patients who receive thrombolytic and are then transferred to an endovascular-capable hospital. Although 2 of the 6 randomized trials met their prespecified noninferiority margin, these margins were large compared with the absolute benefit of alteplase. Overall, functional outcome was similar, with slight trends favoring bridging thrombolytics and a significant increase in final reperfusion. Symptomatic hemorrhage was increased by ≈1.8% in the bridging group but death was nonsignificantly lower. The workflow in direct thrombectomy trials involved delaying thrombolytic administration until eligibility for thrombectomy and the trials was established and randomization completed. This reduced the time available for thrombolytics to occur prethrombectomy compared with standard practice. We conclude that, pending individual-patient data meta-analyses, intravenous thrombolytics retain an important role alongside endovascular thrombectomy. Further efforts to accelerate and enhance reperfusion with thrombolytics and perform individual patient-level pooled subgroup analyses are warranted.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The absence of opacification on CTA in the extracranial ICA in acute ischemic stroke may be caused by atherosclerotic occlusion, dissection, or pseudo-occlusion. The latter is explained by sluggish or stagnant flow in a patent artery caused by a distal intracranial occlusion. This study aimed to explore the accuracy of CTA for differentiating pseudo-occlusion from true occlusion of the extracranial ICA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients from the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) with an apparent ICA occlusion on CTA and available DSA images were included. Two independent observers classified CTA images as atherosclerotic cause (occlusion/high-grade stenosis), dissection, or suspected pseudo-occlusion. Pseudo-occlusion was suspected if CTA showed a gradual contrast decline located above the level of the carotid bulb, especially in the presence of an occluded intracranial ICA bifurcation (T-occlusion). DSA images, classified into the same 3 categories, were used as the criterion standard. RESULTS: In 108 of 476 patients (23%), CTA showed an apparent extracranial carotid occlusion. DSA was available in 46 of these, showing an atherosclerotic cause in 13 (28%), dissection in 16 (35%), and pseudo-occlusion in 17 (37%). The sensitivity for detecting pseudo-occlusion on CTA was 82% (95% CI, 57–96) for both observers; specificity was 76% (95% CI, 56–90) and 86% (95% CI, 68–96) for observers 1 and 2, respectively. The κ value for interobserver agreement was .77, indicating substantial agreement. T-occlusions were more frequent in pseudo- than true occlusions (82% versus 21%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: On CTA, extracranial ICA pseudo-occlusions can be differentiated from true carotid occlusions.