Hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign and response to combination of mechanical Thrombectomy plus intravenous thrombolysis in acute stroke patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Combining intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy (IAMT) and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) has shown to have an excellent recanalization rate and better clinical outcome in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign (HMCAS) on pretreatment non-contrast head CT scan of AIS patients is one of the early ischemic radiological findings in middle cerebral artery territory AIS. We aimed to evaluate whether the presence of HMCAS predicts the outcome of AIS patients receiving combination therapy with IAMT and IVT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records and cerebrovascular images of the patients treated with IAMT and IVT for AIS in our center. Patients with occlusion in the terminal internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery on pretreatment CT angiogram of the head were included. Clinical outcome was compared between subjects with HMCAS and those without. Modified Rankin Score (mRS) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) were used as measures of efficacy and safety, respectively. RESULTS: Of 93 patients, 46 (49%) had HMCAS on their initial head CT scan. Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics and stroke severity. After adjusting for age, NIHSS score, time from symptom onset to starting IVT, and history of diabetes mellitus in multivariate logistic regression analysis, there was no difference in terms of a poor outcome (mRS >2) (OR = 0.5 [CI 0.2-1.4], p = 0.188) or rate of sICH (OR = 3.3 [CI 0.6-19.0], p = 0.190) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: HMCAS is not a predictor of poor outcome in AIS patients receiving combination therapy with IAMT and IVT and does not affect treatment safety.

Safety and efficacy of antiplatelet use before intravenous thrombolysis for acute Ischemic stroke.

AIM: To study the effects of pretreatment with Antiplatelet (AP) before IV thrombolysis (IVT) on the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and functional outcome in patients with Acute Ischemic stroke (AIS). METHOD: In this retrospective study, the medical records and cerebrovascular images of all the patients who received IVT for AIS in our center in a 9.6-year period were reviewed. Patients who took at least one dose of any APs in the last 24 h prior to IVT were identified. They were categorized according to the type of AP, single versus dual AP therapy (DAPT), and dose of AP. Rate of sICH and functional outcome at discharge were compared between the AP users and non-users. RESULTS: A total of 834 patients received IVT for AIS in our center during a 9.6- year period. Multivariate models were adjusted for age, NIHSS on admission, history of atrial fibrillation, history of hypertension, INR on admission, history of stroke and diabetes mellitus. In multivariate regression analyses and after adjusting for the variables mentioned above, the use of any AP was not associated with an increased rate of sICH (OR = 1.28 [0.70-2.34], p = 0.425). Furthermore, the use of DAPT did not significantly increase the rate of sICH in multivariate regression analyses. (OR = 0.663 [0.15-2.84], p = 0.580). The patients on any AP had a lower chance of having good functional outcome in univariate analysis (OR = 0.735 [0.552-0.979], p = 0.035). However, when adjusted for age, baseline NIHSS, history of diabetes, hypertension and prior stroke, AP use was not associated with a decreased chance of having a good functional outcome at discharge. (OR = 0.967 [0.690-1.357], p = 0.848). In addition, no significant difference was noted in the rate of good functional outcome between patients on DAPT and no AP users in multivariate regression analyses. (OR = 1.174 [0.612-2.253], p = 0.629). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show any significant association between the risk of sICH and good functional outcome after IVT for AIS patients on AP therapy (dual or single) in comparison with AP naïve patients.

Safety of Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients Taking Warfarin with Subtherapeutic INR.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines allow the administration of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV r-tPA) to warfarin-treated patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who have an international normalized ratio (INR) of ≤1.7. However, concerns remain about the safety of using IV r-tPA in this situation due to a conceivable risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), lack of dedicated randomized controlled trials and the conflicts in the available data. We aimed to determine the risk of sICH in warfarin-treated patients with subtherapeutic INR who received IV r-tPA for AIS in our large volume comprehensive center. METHODS: Patients who had received IV r-tPA for AIS in a 9.6-year period were retrospectively investigated (n = 834). Patients taking warfarin prior to presentation were identified (n = 55). One patient was excluded due to elevated INR beyond the acceptable range for IV r-tPA treatment. Because of the significant difference in the sample size (54 vs 779), warfarin group was matched with 54 non-warfarin patients adjusted for independent risk factors for sICH (age, admission NIHSS, history of diabetes). Good outcome was defined as mRS of 0-2 on discharge and sICH was defined as an ICH causing increase in NIHSS ≥4 or death. Warfarin-treated group was further dichotomized based on INR (1-1.3 vs 1.3-1.7) and safety and outcome measures were compared between resultant groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between warfarin-treated and the non-warfarin groups in terms of chance of good outcome on discharge (27.8% in warfarin group vs 26.4% in non-warfarin group; p-value >0.05), or the rate of occurrence of sICH (3.7% in warfarin group vs 11.1% in non-warfarin group; p-value >0.05). Furthermore, rate of sICH (5.1% in patients with INR <1.3 versus 0.0% in patients with INR 1.3-1.7; p-value >0.05) or chance of good outcome on discharge (28.2% of patients with INR <1.3 versus 26.7% in patients with INR 1.3-1.7; p-value >0.05) were not found to be different after the warfarin-treated group was dichotomized. CONCLUSION: Administration of IV r-tPA for AIS in warfarin-treated patients with subtherapeutic INR <1.7 does not increase the risk of sICH.

Laboratory factors associated with symptomatic hemorrhagic conversion of acute stroke after systemic thrombolysis.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory factors associated with hemorrhagic conversion (HC) after Intravenous thrombolysis with rtPA (IVT) for Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) remain nebulous despite advances in our knowledge of AIS. This study aimed to investigate the laboratory factors predisposing to HC in AIS patients receiving IVT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who received IV tPA for AIS at our comprehensive stroke center over a 9.6-year period. Besides age, gender, NIHSS, history of diabetes mellitus (DM), history of atrial fibrillation (Afib), we gathered their laboratory data including International Normalized Ratio (INR), lipid panel, serum albumin, serum creatinine, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and admission blood glucose. Post-thrombolysis brain imagings were reviewed to evaluate for symptomatic ICH (sICH). The mean values of above mentioned laboratory data were compared between the group with sICH and patients with no sICH. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to evaluate the association of the laboratory findings with presence of sICH. sICH was defined as ICH causing an increase in NIHSS ≥4. RESULTS: Of the 794 subjects in this study 51 (6.4%) had sICH. In the univariate analysis, patients who developed sICH had significantly higher NIHSS on admission (14.2 ± 5.4 vs 11.2 ± 6.5, p < .001), LDL-cholesterol (113.3 mg/dl ±36.9 vs. 101.8 mg/dl ± 38.2, p = .032), HbA1c (6.9% ± 2.3 vs. 6.1 ± 1.3, p = .003) and lower levels of Albumin (3.5 g/dl ±0.4 vs. 3.9 g/dl ± 0.5, p < .001). Furthermore, a higher prevalence of history of DM (45% vs. 21.6%, p = .020) and Afib (25.4% vs. 10.4%, p = .028) was found in subjects who developed sICH. There were no significant group differences regarding age, sex, total cholesterol, blood glucose on admission, serum creatinine or INR levels (p > .05). After adjusting for multiple covariates, lower Albumin level and and higher HbA1c were significantly associated with an increased risk for sICH development (p < .05). Chances of sICH increased by 33% for every 1 g/dl below a normal albumin level of 4.0 g/dl (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Lower endogenous albumin level and higher HbA1c have shown to predispose to a higher risk of sICH after IVT for AIS and might be good predictors of sICH post IVT.

Strokes occurring in the hospital: Symptom recognition and eligibility for treatment in the intensive care units versus hospital wards.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that 4%-17% of acute ischemic strokes (AISs) occur in patients hospitalized for another reason; scanty data are available about the care delivery and outcome of this patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive inhospital AISs over a 10-year period at our comprehensive stroke center were included in the study. We compared the meantime from last known neurologically intact to symptom detection and also eligibility for acute treatment of patients based on their physical location in the hospital with respect to the level of care when they were found to have the stroke symptoms. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients suffered inhospital AIS during this period (28 in intensive care units/emergency department [ICUs/ED] vs. 25 in regular floors). Only in four patients (7.5%), initial brain imaging was done within 25 min from symptom recognition (as recommended by the American Heart Association/American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines). Forty-two (79%) underwent brain imaging within 6 h of symptom recognition; of them, 11 (26%) received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) within the first 4.5 h of symptom onset and 7 (17%) underwent endovascular treatment (EVT). The mean (±standard deviation) time in minutes from last known neurologically intact to symptom detection for floor patients was significantly longer compared to the ICU/ED patients (194 [±149] vs. 74 [±45], P = 0.0003). Patients admitted to the ICU/ED had more chance of being recognized earlier and being eligible for IVT or/and EVT compared to the patients admitted to the regular floors (44% vs. 25%, P = 0.14); however, the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: ICU/ED patients had a significantly shorter time to stroke symptom detection from last known neurologically intact when compared to the regular floor patients. Furthermore, they had a trend toward a higher likelihood of being eligible for acute treatment compared to the regular floors, although the result did not reach statistical significance.

Delays in door-to-needle time for acute ischemic stroke in the emergency department: A comprehensive stroke center experience.

BACKGROUND: Current American Stroke Association guidelines recommend initiating intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within 60min of patient arrival, given the benefits of IVT for AIS are time dependent. This study aimed to identify the delaying factors in door-to-needle time (DTN) in the emergency department of one of the largest comprehensive stroke centers in New York State. We also recommended measures to reduce the delays. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of all AIS patients who received IVT in our emergency department patients between April 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 to identify those with a DTN time of >60min. We categorized the factors causing the delay into different groups. For each group, we recommended measures to reduce the treatment delays. RESULTS: A total of 487 patients received IVT for AIS during the 3.7-year period. Of these, 96 patients (20.4%) met our DTN time delay criteria. Delays for obtaining stroke imaging and hypertension control were the most common factors. Thirty eight patients (39.5%) had delay in obtaining CT-based stroke imaging. Twenty-two patients (22.9%) required control of elevated blood pressure prior to IVT. Other causes for delay in DTN time included delay in stroke triage and paging (11.4%), fluctuating neurological symptoms (7.2%), uncertainty about diagnosis (12.5%), delays associated with obtaining consent (9.3%), and uncertainty about the time of symptom onset (5.2%). CONCLUSION: Important and common causes of delay in IVT for AIS were identified in a review of charts at our comprehensive stroke center. The authors recommend strategies to achieve faster DTN time for each of the delaying factor categories including faster acquisition and interpretation of stroke imaging, more effective triage protocols and faster blood pressure control for AIS patients who are eligible for IVT.

Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Thrombocytopenia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety of intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who had a platelet count <100,000 /mm3. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients who received IV rtPA for AIS during a 9.6-year period at our stroke center. Those with platelets <100,000/mm3 were identified. Head computed tomography scans performed in 24-36 hours postthrombolysis were reviewed to evaluate the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). RESULTS: A total of 835 patients received IV rtPA for AIS during this period. A total of 5 patients were identified to have a platelet count <100,000/mm3. One of them (20%) developed sICH post-IV tPA administration .The mean platelet count of those 5 patients was 63,000 ± 19,000/mm3. To the best of our knowledge, only 21 thrombocytopenic patients have been reported to receive IV rtPA for AIS in the medical literature. Combining our 5 cases with 21 patients previously reported, we have 26 AIS patients who had a platelet count <100,000/mm3 and received IV rtPA, with 2 of them developing sICH (7.7 %). Comparing the rate of sICH among this group with the patients with normal platelet count in our cohort, there was no statistically significant difference (7.7% versus 6.04%, P value = .73). CONCLUSION: IV rtPA for AIS might be safe in patients with platelet count <100,000/mm3 and it is reasonable not to delay IV rtPA administration while waiting for the platelet count result, unless there is strong suspicion for abnormal platelet count.