Intra-arterial vasodilator use during endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke might improve reperfusion rate.

Treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is an evolving field. New treatment options are still needed in order to achieve greater success rates for arterial recanalization. Intra-arterial therapy (lAT) is an option for AIS patients who are not good candidates for intravenous (i.v.) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) or where it has failed. While good data establishing the role of IAT in AIS management are lacking, the potential clinical efficacy of IAT is based on the premise that recanalization and reperfusion may result in better clinical outcome. Although lAT recanalization and reperfusion rates of large vessel occlusion are much higher than they are for i.v. rt-PA, IAT's radiological efficacy is still far from perfect. Vasodilator use during IAT for AIS may increase the recanalization and reperfusion rates of such therapy. In this report, we describe the radiographic and clinical outcomes in a cohort of AIS patients who received intra-arterial (i.a.) vasodilators during IAT and summarize the role of i.a. vasodilators in the process of recanalization and reperfusion.

Is asymptomatic vasospasm associated with poor outcome in subarachnoid hemorrhage?

BACKGROUND: Vasospasm occurs in up to 70% of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), but only half becomes symptomatic. It is unclear whether asymptomatic vasospasm (AV) detected by noninvasive testing affects outcome. Prophylactic hemodilutional, hypertensive, and hypervolemic (HHH) therapy is widely used but the benefit remains unproven. We aim to determine whether AV increases the risk of poor outcome and whether HHH is safe. METHODS: A total of 175 consecutive patients with aSAH without clinical vasospasm were included. Patients with sonographic (transcranial doppler) or radiologic (computed tomography [CT] Angiography) vasospasm were assigned to AV group, while those without were assigned to no vasospasm (NV) group. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between AV and HHH on poor outcome, defined as modified Rankin scale (mRS) >3 at discharge or 3 to 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 106 patients had NV and 25 received HHH. A total of 69 patients had AV and 54 received HHH. Asymptomatic vasospasm compared to NV was not associated with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-8.9; P = .1). Hemodilutional, hypertensive, and hypervolemic use in patients with AV did not improve the outcome (OR 0.16, 95%CI: 0.009-2.84; P = .2). In patients with NV, HHH use showed trend toward poor outcome after multivariable adjustment (OR 12.6, 95%CI: 1.08-146.5 P = .04). CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic vasospasm does not appear to be associated with poor outcome in aSAH. Hemodilutional, hypertensive, and hypervolemic therapy in AV was not associated with improved outcome and may be harmful to patients who do not have vasospasm. Further research is needed to validate this finding.

Blood-brain barrier disruption in humans is independently associated with increased matrix metalloproteinase-9.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) may play a role in blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption after ischemic stroke. We hypothesized that plasma concentrations of MMP-9 are associated with a marker of BBB disruption in patients evaluated for acute stroke. METHODS: Patients underwent MRI on presentation and approximately 24 hours later. The MRI marker, termed hyperintense acute reperfusion injury marker (HARM), is gadolinium enhancement of cerebrospinal fluid on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MRI. Plasma MMP-9 and tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-1 were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Logistic regression models tested for predictors of HARM on 24-hour follow-up scans separately for MMP-9 and the ratio of MMP-9 to TIMP-1. RESULTS: For the 41 patients enrolled, diagnoses were: acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome, 33 (80.6%); intracerebral hemorrhage, 6 (14.6%); stroke mimic, 1 (2.4%); and no stroke, 1 (2.4%). HARM was present in 17 (41.5%) patients. In model 1, HARM was associated with baseline plasma MMP-9 concentration (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.019; P=0.033). In model 2, HARM was associated with the ratio of MMP-9 to tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-1 (OR, 4.94; 95% CI, 1.27-19.14; P=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline MMP-9 was a significant predictor of HARM at 24-hour follow-up, supporting the hypothesis that MMP-9 is associated with BBB disruption. If the association between MMP-9 and BBB disruption is confirmed in future studies, HARM may be a useful imaging marker to evaluate MMP-9 inhibition in ischemic stroke and other populations with BBB disruption.