Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a type of stroke caused by thrombosis of the dural sinus and/or cerebral veins. The prevalence of CVT in high-income countries is 1.3 to 1.6 per 100 000 persons^1,2 and is higher in low- and middle-income countries.³

Introduction: Acute stroke unit care, intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment significantly improve the outcome for patients with ischaemic stroke, but data on access and delivery throughout Europe are lacking. We assessed best available data on access and delivery of acute stroke unit care, intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment throughout Europe. Methods: A survey, drafted by stroke professionals (ESO, ESMINT, EAN) and a patient organisation (SAFE), was sent to national stroke societies and experts in 51 European countries (World Health Organization definition) requesting experts to provide national data on stroke unit, intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment rates. We compared both pooled and individual national data per one million inhabitants and per 1000 annual incident ischaemic strokes with highest country rates. Population estimates were based on United Nations data, stroke incidences on the Global Burden of Disease Report. Results: We obtained data from 44 European countries. The estimated mean number of stroke units was 2.9 per million inhabitants (95% CI 2.3–3.6) and 1.5 per 1000 annual incident strokes (95% CI 1.1–1.9), highest country rates were 9.2 and 5.8. Intravenous thrombolysis was provided in 42/44 countries. The estimated mean annual number of intravenous thrombolysis was 142.0 per million inhabitants (95% CI 107.4–176.7) and 72.7 per 1000 annual incident strokes (95% CI 54.2–91.2), highest country rates were 412.2 and 205.5. Endovascular treatment was provided in 40/44 countries. The estimated mean annual number of endovascular treatments was 37.1 per million inhabitants (95% CI 26.7–47.5) and 19.3 per 1000 annual incident strokes (95% CI 13.5–25.1), highest country rates were 111.5 and 55.9. Overall, 7.3% of incident ischaemic stroke patients received intravenous thrombolysis (95% CI 5.4–9.1) and 1.9% received endovascular treatment (95% CI 1.3–2.5), highest country rates were 20.6% and 5.6%. Conclusion: We observed major inequalities in acute stroke treatment between and within 44 European countries. Our data will assist decision makers implementing tailored stroke care programmes for reducing stroke-related morbidity and mortality in Europe.

Purpose To assess EQ-5D-5L (5L) validity in patients with acute stroke, in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (3L). Methods Cross-sectional study of 408 patients during index hospitalization. We compared 5L and 3L in terms of feasibility, frequency of unique health states, ceiling effect and discriminatory power (informativity). We assessed construct validity in terms of known-groups validity and convergent validity of 5L dimensions with other stroke outcome measures. Results The overall proportion of patients with acute stroke reporting ‘no problems’ with 3L—6.1 % was further reduced to 5.6 % with 5L (relative reduction of 8.2 %). The highest improvement in relative discriminatory power, when moving from 3L to 5L, was noticed in pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions (Shannon Evenness Index 0.91 for both 5L dimensions; relative increase 34.4 and 29.1 %, respectively). Known-groups validity tests confirmed prior hypotheses: Health state utilities were lower in following subpopulations—females, patients with high modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, low Barthel Index (BI) or VAS score, patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage, and when proxy respondent was used. Convergence of EQ-5D-5L dimensions with mRS, BI and EQ VAS was improved or at least the same as for 3L dimensions. Conclusions Results support the validity of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system as a generic health outcome measure in patients with acute stroke, demonstrating some psychometric advantages in comparison with EQ-5D-3L.

Aims To date, evidence to support the construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L has primarily focused on cross-sectional data. The aims of this study were to examine the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L in patients with stroke and to compare it with responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L and visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). Methods We performed an observational longitudinal cohort study of patients with stroke. At 1 week and 4 months post-stroke, patients were assessed with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel Index (BI) and were administered the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L, including the EQ VAS. The EQ-5D-5L index scores were derived using the crosswalk methodology developed by the EuroQol Group. We classified patients according to two external criteria, based on mRS or BI, into 3 categories: ‘improvement,’ ‘stable’ or ‘deterioration’. We assessed the responsiveness of each measure in each patient subgroup using: effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), F-statistic, relative efficiency and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results A total of 112 patients (52 % females; mean age 70.6 years; 93 % ischemic stroke) completed all the instruments at both occasions. In subjects with clinical improvement, EQ-5D-5L was consistently responsive, showing moderate ES (0.51–0.71) and moderate to large SRM (0.69–0.86). In general, EQ-5D-3L index appeared to be more responsive (ES 0.63–0.82; SRM 0.77–1.06) and EQ VAS less responsive (ES 0.51–0.65; SRM 0.59–0.69) than EQ-5D-5L index. Conclusions The EQ-5D-5L index, based on the crosswalk value set, seems to be appropriately responsive in patients with stroke, 4 months after disease onset. As far as EQ-5D-5L index is scored according to crosswalk approach, the EQ-5D-3L index appears to be more responsive in stroke population.

Background and purpose: The reduction of delay between onset and hospital arrival and adequate pre‐hospital care of persons with acute stroke are important for improving the chances of a favourable outcome. The objective is to recommend evidence‐based practices for the management of patients with suspected stroke in the pre‐hospital setting.Methods: The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to define the key clinical questions. An expert panel then reviewed the literature, established the quality of the evidence, and made recommendations.Results: Despite very low quality of evidence educational campaigns to increase the awareness of immediately calling emergency medical services are strongly recommended. Moderate quality evidence was found to support strong recommendations for the training of emergency medical personnel in recognizing the symptoms of a stroke and in implementation of a pre‐hospital ‘code stroke’ including highest priority dispatch, pre‐hospital notification and rapid transfer to the closest ‘stroke‐ready’ centre. Insufficient evidence was found to recommend a pre‐hospital stroke scale to predict large vessel occlusion. Despite the very low quality of evidence, restoring normoxia in patients with hypoxia is recommended, and blood pressure lowering drugs and treating hyperglycaemia with insulin should be avoided. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of mobile stroke units delivering intravenous thrombolysis at the scene. Because only feasibility studies have been reported, no recommendations can be provided for pre‐hospital telemedicine during ambulance transport.Conclusions: These guidelines inform on the contemporary approach to patients with suspected stroke in the pre‐hospital setting. Further studies, preferably randomized controlled trials, are required to examine the impact of particular interventions on quality parameters and outcome.

Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) is approved for use in selected patients with ischaemic stroke within 3 hours of symptom onset. IST-3 seeks to determine whether a wider range of patients may benefit. International, multi-centre, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial of intravenous rt-PA in acute ischaemic stroke. Suitable patients must be assessed and able to start treatment within 6 hours of developing symptoms, and brain imaging must have excluded intracerebral haemorrhage. With 1000 patients, the trial can detect a 7% absolute difference in the primary outcome. With3500 patients, it can detect a 4.0% absolute benefit & with 6000, (mostly treated between 3 & 6 hours), it can detect a 3% benefit. Patients are entered into the trial by telephoning a fast, secure computerised central randomisation system or via a secure web interface. Repeat brain imaging must be performed at 24–48 hours. The scans are reviewed 'blind' by expert readers. The primary measure of outcome is the proportion of patients alive and independent (Modified Rankin 0–2) at six months (assessed via a postal questionnaire mailed directly to the patient). Secondary outcomes include: events within 7 days (death, recurrent stroke, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage), outcome at six months (death, functional status, EuroQol). ISRCTN25765518