Bart M. Demaerschalk

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Background and Purpose— The authors present an overview of the current evidence and management recommendations for evaluation and treatment of adults with acute ischemic stroke. The intended audiences are prehospital care providers, physicians, allied health professionals, and hospital administrators responsible for the care of acute ischemic stroke patients within the first 48 hours from stroke onset. These guidelines supersede the prior 2007 guidelines and 2009 updates. Methods— Members of the writing committee were appointed by the American Stroke Association Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight Committee, representing various areas of medical expertise. Strict adherence to the American Heart Association conflict of interest policy was maintained throughout the consensus process. Panel members were assigned topics relevant to their areas of expertise, reviewed the stroke literature with emphasis on publications since the prior guidelines, and drafted recommendations in accordance with the American Heart Association Stroke Council’s Level of Evidence grading algorithm. Results— The goal of these guidelines is to limit the morbidity and mortality associated with stroke. The guidelines support the overarching concept of stroke systems of care and detail aspects of stroke care from patient recognition; emergency medical services activation, transport, and triage; through the initial hours in the emergency department and stroke unit. The guideline discusses early stroke evaluation and general medical care, as well as ischemic stroke, specific interventions such as reperfusion strategies, and general physiological optimization for cerebral resuscitation. Conclusions— Because many of the recommendations are based on limited data, additional research on treatment of acute ischemic stroke remains urgently needed.

Endovascular Therapy after Intravenous t-PA versus t-PA Alone for Stroke

BACKGROUND Endovascular therapy is increasingly used after the administration of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) for patients with moderate-to-severe acute ischemic stroke, but whether a combined approach is more effective than intravenous t-PA alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned eligible patients who had received intravenous t-PA within 3 hours after symptom onset to receive additional endovascular therapy or intravenous t-PA alone, in a 2:1 ratio. The primary outcome measure was a modified Rankin scale score of 2 or less (indicating functional independence) at 90 days (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). RESULTS The study was stopped early because of futility after 656 participants had undergone randomization (434 patients to endovascular therapy and 222 to intravenous t-PA alone). The proportion of participants with a modified Rankin score of 2 or less at 90 days did not differ significantly according to treatment (40.8% with endovascular therapy and 38.7% with intravenous t-PA; absolute adjusted difference, 1.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to 9.1, with adjustment for the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score [8-19, indicating moderately severe stroke, or ≥20, indicating severe stroke]), nor were there significant differences for the predefined subgroups of patients with an NIHSS score of 20 or higher (6.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 18.1) and those with a score of 19 or lower (-1.0 percentage point; 95% CI, -10.8 to 8.8). Findings in the endovascular-therapy and intravenous t-PA groups were similar for mortality at 90 days (19.1% and 21.6%, respectively; P=0.52) and the proportion of patients with symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage within 30 hours after initiation of t-PA (6.2% and 5.9%, respectively; P=0.83). CONCLUSIONS The trial showed similar safety outcomes and no significant difference in functional independence with endovascular therapy after intravenous t-PA, as compared with intravenous t-PA alone. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00359424.).

Scientific Rationale for the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Purpose— To critically review and evaluate the science behind individual eligibility criteria (indication/inclusion and contraindications/exclusion criteria) for intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (alteplase) treatment in acute ischemic stroke. This will allow us to better inform stroke providers of quantitative and qualitative risks associated with alteplase administration under selected commonly and uncommonly encountered clinical circumstances and to identify future research priorities concerning these eligibility criteria, which could potentially expand the safe and judicious use of alteplase and improve outcomes after stroke. Methods— Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association’s Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writers used systematic literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, morbidity and mortality reports, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence and to indicate gaps in current knowledge and, when appropriate, formulated recommendations using standard American Heart Association criteria. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on and approved the final version of this document. The document underwent extensive American Heart Association internal peer review, Stroke Council Leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Results— After a review of the current literature, it was clearly evident that the levels of evidence supporting individual exclusion criteria for intravenous alteplase vary widely. Several exclusionary criteria have already undergone extensive scientific study such as the clear benefit of alteplase treatment in elderly stroke patients, those with severe stroke, those with diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia, and those with minor early ischemic changes evident on computed tomography. Some exclusions such as recent intracranial surgery are likely based on common sense and sound judgment and are unlikely to ever be subjected to a randomized, clinical trial to evaluate safety. Most other contraindications or warnings range somewhere in between. However, the differential impact of each exclusion criterion varies not only with the evidence base behind it but also with the frequency of the exclusion within the stroke population, the probability of coexistence of multiple exclusion factors in a single patient, and the variation in practice among treating clinicians.

Influence of sex on outcomes of stenting versus endarterectomy: a subgroup analysis of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

BACKGROUND In the randomised Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST), the primary endpoint did not differ between carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis. A prespecified secondary aim was to examine differences by sex. METHODS Patients who were asymptomatic or had had a stroke or transient ischaemic attack within 180 days before random allocation were enrolled in CREST at 117 clinical centres in the USA and Canada. The primary outcome was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years. We used standard survival methods including Kaplan-Meier survival curves and sex-by-treatment interaction term to assess the relation between patient factors and risk of reaching the primary outcome. Analyses were by intention to treat. CREST is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00004732. FINDINGS Between Dec 21, 2000, and July 18, 2008, 2502 patients were randomly assigned to carotid endarterectomy (n=1240) or carotid artery stenting (n=1262), 872 (34.9%) of whom were women. Rates of the primary endpoint for carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy were 6.2% versus 6.8% in men (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.46) and 8.9% versus 6.7% in women (1.35, 0.82-2.23). There was no significant interaction in the primary endpoint between sexes (interaction p=0.34). Periprocedural events occurred in 35 (4.3%) of 807 men assigned to carotid artery stenting compared with 40 (4.9%) of 823 assigned to carotid endarterectomy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57-1.41) and 31 (6.8%) of 455 women assigned to carotid artery stenting compared with 16 (3.8%) of 417 assigned to carotid endarterectomy (1.84, 1.01-3.37; interaction p=0.064). INTERPRETATION Periprocedural risk of events seems to be higher in women who have carotid artery stenting than those who have carotid endarterectomy whereas there is little difference in men. Additional data are needed to confirm whether this differential risk should be taken into account in decisions for treatment of carotid disease in women. FUNDING National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Abbott Vascular Solutions (formerly Guidant).

Interactions Within Stroke Systems of Care A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

In the United States and other parts of the world, various cities, states, and regions are developing multitiered systems for the care of patients with acute stroke. These systems often involve a range of healthcare components supported by various rules and regulations. The present policy statement will put forth concepts and elements for stroke systems of care that are intended to optimize patient care and management processes and improve patient outcomes, are practical to implement, and are supported by existing clinical data or expert consensus opinion. We will also make policy recommendations for the key elements of a stroke system of care. The public health implications of stroke care in the United States and worldwide are profound. Stroke is currently the fourth-leading cause of death in the United States and a major cause of long-term disability. Advancing age is a major risk factor for stroke, and the demographics of the US population and elsewhere reflect a continued growth of the aging population, with a resulting increase in the absolute incidence and prevalence of stroke.1 Improved stroke systems of care can ensure proper treatment of these patients and a reduction in death and disability. This is consistent with current American Heart Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthy People 2020 public health goals and initiatives.2 There are several new care paradigms and technologies that are emerging as important elements of a stroke system of care. These include the development and proliferation of various levels of stroke centers; the expanded use of telemedicine technologies; advanced medical, endovascular, and surgical interventions; and comprehensive rehabilitation strategies and programs. Prehospital care and triage and the efficient transfer of patients between hospitals are also key components of stroke systems. The present …

Health-Related Quality of Life after Carotid Stenting versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Results from CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial)

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in patients treated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA). BACKGROUND In CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial), the largest randomized trial of carotid revascularization to date, there was no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint, but rates of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) differed between CAS and CEA. To help guide individualized clinical decision making, we compared HRQOL among patients enrolled in the CREST study. We also performed exploratory analyses to evaluate the association between periprocedural complications and HRQOL. METHODS We measured HRQOL at baseline, and after 2 weeks, 1 month, and 1 year among 2,502 patients randomly assigned to either CAS or CEA in the CREST study. The HRQOL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and 6 disease-specific scales designed to study HRQOL in patients undergoing carotid revascularization. RESULTS At both 2 weeks and 1 month, CAS patients had better outcomes for multiple components of the SF-36, with large differences for role physical function, pain, and the physical component summary scale (all p < 0.01). On the disease-specific scales, CAS patients reported less difficulty with driving, eating/swallowing, neck pain, and headaches but more difficulty with walking and leg pain (all p < 0.05). However, by 1 year, there were no differences in any HRQOL measure between CAS and CEA. In the exploratory analyses, periprocedural stroke was associated with poorer 1-year HRQOL across all SF-36 domains, but periprocedural MI or cranial nerve palsy were not. CONCLUSIONS Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization, CAS is associated with better HRQOL during the early recovery period as compared with CEA-particularly with regard to physical limitations and pain-but these differences diminish over time and are not evident after 1 year. Although CAS and CEA are associated with similar overall HRQOL at 1 year, event-specific analyses confirm that stroke has a greater and more sustained impact on HRQOL than MI. (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial [CREST]; NCT00004732)

Barriers to telemedicine: Survey of current users in acute care units

CONTEXT The present study of current telemedicine users is a unique attempt to understand the barriers and motivational factors related to the utilization of telemedicine. OBJECTIVE A survey of emergency and critical care remote presence telemedicine users was conducted to determine the factors that motivate and the barriers that impede the acceptance and maintenance of a robotic telemedicine (RTM) program. SETTING The majority of the survey users were in the Emergency Department or in the Intensive Care Unit. METHODS E-mail invitations were sent to 483 individuals representing 63 healthcare institutions and groups in North America and Europe. Respondents were directed to a Web-based survey. The survey consisted of 96 separate questions, addressing user familiarity and 5-point Likert scales, addressing issues spanning the conceptual and practical issues surrounding adoption of telemedicine. RESULTS A total of 106 surveys were completed, representing an individual response rate of 21.9% but an institutional response rate of 60.3%. More than two-thirds of the respondents were physicians who participated in active RTM programs. Across seven different topics related to barriers to implementing RTM, the majority of all respondents indicated that cultural issues did not constitute meaningful hurdles, technological matters were generally favorable, and that most personnel were agreeable to both achieving the buy-in to start an RTM program and to maintaining RTM once started. However, respondents proclaimed that RTMs success was still hampered by licensing, credentialing, and malpractice protection, as well as costs, billing, and reimbursement issues. Achieving immediate patient access, overcoming service gaps, improving quality, providing clinical support, maintaining patient satisfaction, and adhering to practice guidelines were viewed as significant motives for RTM implementation. CONCLUSIONS The leading applications of RTM included emergency response and consultation. The patients, physicians, nurses, nor hospital executives served as barriers to implementation. However, licensing, costs for technology, and reimbursement for RTM continue to impede progress.

Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera in Arizona The Initial Mayo Clinic Experience Trial

Background and Purpose— Telemedicine techniques can be used to address the rural–metropolitan disparity in acute stroke care. The Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera (STRokE DOC) trial reported more accurate decision making for telemedicine consultations compared with telephone-only and that the California-based research network facilitated a high rate of thrombolysis use, improved data collection, low risk of complications, low technical complications, and favorable assessment times. The main objective of the STRokE DOC Arizona TIME (The Initial Mayo Clinic Experience) trial was to determine the feasibility of establishing, de novo, a single-hub, multirural spoke hospital telestroke research network across a large geographical area in Arizona by replicating the STRokE DOC protocol. Methods— Methods included prospective, single-hub, 2-spoke, randomized, blinded, controlled trial of a 2-way, site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine system designed for remote examination of adult patients with acute stroke versus telephone consultation to assess eligibility for treatment with intravenous thrombolysis. The primary outcome measure was whether the decision to give thrombolysis was correct. Secondary outcomes were rate of thrombolytic use, 90-day functional outcomes, incidence of intracerebral hemorrhages, and technical observations. Results— From December 2007 to October 2008, 54 patients were assessed, 27 of whom were randomized to each arm. Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at presentation was 7.3 (SD 6.2) points. No consultations were aborted; however, technical problems (74%) were prevalent in the telemedicine arm. Overall, the correct treatment decision was established in 87% of the consultations. Both modalities, telephone (89% correct) and telemedicine (85% correct), performed well. Intravenous thrombolytic treatment was used in 30% of the telemedicine and telephone consultations. Good functional outcomes at 90 days were not significantly different. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (4% in telemedicine and 11% in telephone) or rates of intracerebral hemorrhage (4% in telemedicine and 0% in telephone). Conclusions— It is feasible to extend the original STRokE DOC trial protocol to a new state and establish an operational single-hub, multispoke rural hospital telestroke research network in Arizona. The trial was not designed to have sufficient power to detect a difference between the 2 consultative modes: telemedicine and telephone-only. Whether by telemedicine or telephone consultative modalities, there were appropriate treatment decisions, high rates of thrombolysis use, improved data collection, low rates of intracerebral hemorrhage, and equally favorable time requirements. The learning curve was steep for the hub and spoke personnel of the new telestroke network, as reflected by frequent technical problems. Overall, the results support the effectiveness of highly organized and structured stroke telemedicine networks for extending expert stroke care into rural remote communities lacking sufficient neurological expertise.

Efficacy of Telemedicine for Stroke: Pooled Analysis of the Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera (STRokE DOC) and STRokE DOC Arizona Telestroke Trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Telemedicine can disseminate vascular neurology expertise and optimize recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) use for acute ischemic stroke in rural underserved communities. The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess whether telemedicine or telephone was superior for decision-making. METHODS The study design is a pooled analysis of two identically designed randomized controlled trials conducted in a multistate hub and spoke telestroke network setting with acute stroke syndrome patients, comparing telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations. From each trial, common data elements were pooled to assess, principally, for correctness of thrombolysis decision-making. Secondary outcomes included rt-PA use rate, 90-day functional outcome, post-thrombolysis intracranial hemorrhage, and data completeness. RESULTS Two hundred seventy-six pooled patients were evaluated. Correct thrombolysis eligibility decisions were made more often with telemedicine (96% telemedicine, 83% telephone; odds ratio [OR] 4.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69-10.46; p=0.002). Intravenous rt-PA usage was 26% (29% telemedicine, 24% telephone; OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.71-2.25; p=0.41). Ninety-day outcomes were not different for Barthel Index, modified Rankin Scale, or mortality. There was no difference in post-thrombolysis intracranial hemorrhage (8% telemedicine, 6% telephone; p>0.999). CONCLUSIONS This pooled analysis supports the hypothesis that stroke telemedicine consultations, compared with telephone-only, result in more accurate decision-making. Together with high rt-PA utilization rate, low post-rt-PA intracranial hemorrhage rate, and acceptable patient outcome, the results confirm that telemedicine is a viable consultative tool for acute stroke. The replication of the hub and spoke network infrastructure supports the generalizability of telemedicine when used in broader settings.

Ancrod in Acute Ischemic Stroke Results of 500 Subjects Beginning Treatment Within 6 Hours of Stroke Onset in the Ancrod Stroke Program

Background and Purpose— Previous studies of multiple-day dosing with the defibrinogenating agent, ancrod, in acute ischemic stroke yielded conflicting results but suggested that a brief dosing regimen might improve efficacy and safety. The Ancrod Stroke Program was designed to test this concept in subjects beginning ancrod or placebo within 6 hours of the onset of acute ischemic stroke. Methods— Five hundred subjects with acute ischemic stroke who could begin receiving study material within 6 hours of symptom onset were infused intravenously with either ancrod (0.167 IU/kg per hour) or placebo over 2 or 3 hours. The primary efficacy outcome was a dichotomized, modified Rankin score at 90 days with less stringent cut-points for higher prestroke modified Rankin score and pretreatment NIHSS total score (“responder analysis”). Safety variables included mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Results— Although the desired changes in fibrinogen level were seen in >90% of ancrod subjects, interim analysis for futility led to the study being halted for lack of efficacy. Positive responder status in the interim dataset was seen in 39.6% of ancrod subjects and 37.2% of placebo subjects (P=0.47). Ninety-day mortality did not differ between the 2 groups (ancrod, 15.6%; placebo, 14.1%; P=0.32), and the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within the first 72 hours, although not significantly different in ancrod compared to placebo subjects (P=0.19), was approximately twice as high (3.9% vs 2.0%; P=0.19). Conclusion— These results demonstrate that intravenous ancrod starting within 6 hours after symptom onset in a broad selection of subjects with ischemic stroke did not improve their outcome and revealed a trend to increased bleeding despite successful efforts to achieve rapid initial defibrinogenation and avoid prolonged hypofibrinogenemia.