Donald Heck

Guidelines for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The guideline is addressed to all clinicians who manage secondary prevention for these patients. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. Recommendations are also provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of specific circumstances, including aortic arch atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, patent foramen ovale, hyperhomocysteinemia, hypercoagulable states, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, sickle cell disease, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and pregnancy. Special sections address use of antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy after an intracranial hemorrhage and implementation of guidelines.

Recommendations on Angiographic Revascularization Grading Standards for Acute Ischemic Stroke A Consensus Statement

See related article, p 2509 Intra-arterial therapy (IAT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has dramatically evolved during the past decade to include aspiration and stent-retriever devices. Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the superior revascularization efficacy of stent-retrievers compared with the first-generation Merci device.1,2 Additionally, the Diffusion and Perfusion Imaging Evaluation for Understanding Stroke Evolution (DEFUSE) 2, the Mechanical Retrieval and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE), and the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trials have confirmed the importance of early revascularization for achieving better clinical outcome.3–5 Despite these data, the current heterogeneity in cerebral angiographic revascularization grading (CARG) poses a major obstacle to further advances in stroke therapy. To date, several CARG scales have been used to measure the success of IAT.6–14 Even when the same scale is used in different studies, it is applied using varying operational criteria, which further confounds the interpretation of this key metric.10 The lack of a uniform grading approach limits comparison of revascularization rates across clinical trials and hinders the translation of promising, early phase angiographic results into proven, clinically effective treatments.6–14 For these reasons, it is critical that CARG scales be standardized and end points for successful revascularization be refined.6 This will lead to a greater understanding of the aspects of revascularization that are strongly predictive of clinical response. The optimal grading scale must demonstrate (1) a strong correlation with clinical outcome, (2) simplicity and feasibility of scale interpretation while ensuring characterization of relevant angiographic findings, and (3) high inter-rater reproducibility. To address these issues, a multidisciplinary panel of neurointerventionalists, neuroradiologists, and stroke neurologists with extensive experience in neuroimaging and IAT, convened at the “Consensus Meeting on Revascularization Grading Following Endovascular Therapy” with the goal …

Aspiration Thrombectomy After Intravenous Alteplase Versus Intravenous Alteplase Alone

Background and Purpose— Thrombectomy, primarily with stent retrievers with or without adjunctive aspiration, provided clinical benefit across multiple prospective randomized trials. Whether this benefit is exclusive to stent retrievers is unclear. Methods— THERAPY (The Randomized, Concurrent Controlled Trial to Assess the Penumbra System’s Safety and Effectiveness in the Treatment of Acute Stroke; NCT01429350) was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized (1:1), open label, blinded end point evaluation, concurrent controlled clinical trial of aspiration thrombectomy after intravenous alteplase (IAT) administration compared with intravenous-alteplase alone in patients with large vessel ischemic stroke because of a thrombus length of ≥8 mm. The primary efficacy end point was the percent of patients achieving independence at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale score, 0–2; intention-to-treat analysis). The primary safety end point was the rate of severe adverse events (SAEs) by 90 days (as treated analysis). Patients were randomized 1:1 across 36 centers in 2 countries (United States and Germany). Results— Enrollment was halted after 108 (55 IAT and 53 intravenous) patients (of 692 planned) because of external evidence of the added benefit of endovascular therapy to intravenous-alteplase alone. Functional independence was achieved in 38% IAT and 30% intravenous intention-to-treat groups (P=0.52). Intention-to-treat ordinal modified Rankin Scale odds ratio was 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.86–3.59; P=0.12) in favor of IAT. Secondary efficacy analyses all demonstrated a consistent direction of effect toward benefit of IAT. No differences in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates (9.3% IAT versus 9.7% intravenous, P=1.0) or 90-day mortality (IAT: 12% versus intravenous: 23.9%, P=0.18) were observed. Conclusions— THERAPY did not achieve its primary end point in this underpowered sample. Directions of effect for all prespecified outcomes were both internally and externally consistent toward benefit. It is possible that an alternate method of thrombectomy, primary aspiration, will benefit selected patients harboring large vessel occlusions. Further study on this topic is indicated. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01429350.

Endovascular therapy of acute ischemic stroke: Report of the Standards of Practice Committee of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery

Objective To summarize and classify the evidence for the use of endovascular techniques in the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods Recommendations previously published by the American Heart Association (AHA) (Guidelines for the early management of adults with ischemic stroke (Circulation 2007) and Scientific statement indications for the performance of intracranial endovascular neurointerventional procedures (Circulation 2009)) were vetted and used as a foundation for the current process. Building on this foundation, a critical review of the literature was performed to evaluate evidence supporting the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The assessment was based on guidelines for evidence based medicine proposed by the Stroke Council of the AHA and the University of Oxford, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). Procedural safety, technical efficacy and impact on patient outcomes were specifically examined.

Performance and training standards for endovascular ischemic stroke treatment.

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan. According to the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association, there are now 750 000 new strokes that occur each year, resulting in 200 000 deaths, or 1 of every 16 deaths, per year in the USA alone. Endovascular therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke is an area of intense investigation. The American Stroke Association has given a qualified endorsement of intra-arterial thrombolysis in selected patients. Intra-arterial thrombolysis has been studied in two randomized trials and numerous case series. Although two devices have been granted FDA approval with an indication for mechanical stroke thrombectomy, none of these thrombectomy devices has demonstrated efficacy for the improvement of patient outcomes. The purpose of the present document is to define what constitutes adequate training to perform neuroendovascular procedures in patients with acute ischemic stroke and what performance standards should be adopted to assess outcomes. These guidelines have been written and approved by multiple neuroscience societies which historically have been directly involved in the medical, surgical and endovascular care of patients with acute stroke. The participating member organizations of the Neurovascular Coalition involved in the writing and endorsement of this document are the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Cerebrovascular Section, and the Society of Vascular & Interventional Neurology.

Performance and training standards for endovascular acute ischemic stroke treatment

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan. According to the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association, there are now 750,000 new strokes that occur each year, resulting in 200,000 deaths, or 1 of every 16 deaths, per year in the United States alone. Endovascular therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke is an area of intense investigation. The American Stroke Association has given a qualified endorsement of intra-arterial thrombolysis in selected patients. Intra-arterial thrombolysis has been studied in 2 randomized trials and numerous case series. Although 2 devices have been granted FDA phase 3 approval with an indication for mechanical stroke thrombectomy, none of these thrombectomy devices has demonstrated efficacy for the improvement of patient outcomes. The purpose of the present document is to define what constitutes adequate training to perform neuroendovascular procedures in patients with acute ischemic stroke and what performance standards should be adopted to assess outcomes. These guidelines have been written and approved by multiple neuroscience societies that historically have been directly involved in the medical, surgical and endovascular care of patients with acute stroke. These organizations include the Neurovascular Coalition and its participating societies, including the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Cerebrovascular Section (AANS/CNS), and Society of Vascular & Interventional Neurology (SVIN).

Performance and training standards for endovascular ischemic stroke treatment: Special article

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan. According to the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association, there are now 750,000 new strokes that occur each year, resulting in 200,000 deaths, or 1 of every 16 deaths, per year in the USA alone. Endovascular therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke is an area of intense investigation. The American Stroke Association has given a qualified endorsement of intraarterial thrombolysis in selected patients. Intraarterial thrombolysis has been studied in two randomized trials and numerous case series. Although two devices have been granted FDA approval with an indication for mechanical stroke thrombectomy, none of these thrombectomy devices has demonstrated efficacy for the improvement of patient outcomes. The purpose of the present document is to define what constitutes adequate training to perform neuroendovascular procedures in patients with acute ischemic stroke and what performance standards should be adopted to assess outcomes. These guidelines have been written and approved by multiple neuroscience societies which historically have been directly involved in the medical, surgical and endovascular care of patients with acute stroke. The participating member organizations of the Neurovascular Coalition involved in the writing and endorsement of this document are the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Cerebrovascular Section, and the Society of Vascular & Interventional Neurology.

Social responsibility in medical reporting

On August 6, 2009, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), arguably the worlds most influential medical journal, published the results of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vertebroplasty that demonstrated equivalence to a controlled intervention.1 2 Set against the backdrop of a heated national health care debate, these articles created a media frenzy and placed the NeuroInterventional community (amongst others) under immediate and intense scrutiny. The articles sparked a sensationalistic and sometimes hostile debate in which vertebral augmentation specialists were called upon to comment, render opinions and seemingly “defend” their practice.3 4 Sadly for our patients, many of these responses were emotional, reactionary and antagonistic to evidence-based medicine (EBM)—an opportunity for a healthy and reasoned debate was lost. The large body of evidence that supports the practice of vertebral augmentation cannot be easily dismissed. Practitioners of vertebral augmentation have seen countless patients …

Do no harm: the rush to abbreviated training of stroke interventionalists is premature and ill advised

Those who advocate training non-neurointerventional physicians to perform endovascular stroke therapy generally hold three assumptions. First, physicians with interventional experience in other vascular territories can become competent in stroke intervention with a relatively small number of neurointerventional cases. Second, the benefit of endovascular stroke intervention and the prognosis without it are so disparate that there is an obligation to provide the treatment when and where an experienced stroke neurointerventionalist is not available. Third, the time sensitive and emergent nature of acute stroke means that decentralization of care is necessary. In my opinion, the available evidence does not support any of these conclusions at present. There is an important difference between medical and procedural based therapies. Both require cognitive training and expertise to make a proper diagnosis and decide on the best treatment strategy. Procedural based therapies, however, require mental and physical dexterity in contradistinction to medical treatments which are generally operator independent. Assuming appropriate patient selection, the success, effectiveness or complications of medical treatment are the same irrespective of who administers the drug or treatment. Surgery and other procedural based treatments are obviously quite different. The same cognitive training is needed to decide when to operate but technical training is also crucial. The maximal theoretical benefit of any procedure is always compromised by the imperfection of the operator and is therefore inextricably linked to the experience and training of the operator. This is why we seek out ‘good hands’ in a surgeon after selection of therapy whereas such a consideration in a medical therapist is irrelevant. The risk of a surgical complication is particularly important when the recommended surgical treatment has a relatively narrow window of benefit over non-surgical management. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a good neurointerventional example of this situation. The absolute risk reduction with carotid endarterectomy for …

Safety and Efficacy of a 3-Dimensional Stent Retriever With Aspiration-Based Thrombectomy vs Aspiration-Based Thrombectomy Alone in Acute Ischemic Stroke Intervention: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance The treatment effects of individual mechanical thrombectomy devices in large-vessel acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remain unclear. Objective To determine whether the novel 3-dimensional (3-D) stent retriever used in conjunction with an aspiration-based mechanical thrombectomy device (Penumbra System; Penumbra) is noninferior to aspiration-based thrombectomy alone in AIS. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled patients at 25 North American centers from May 19, 2012, through November 19, 2015, with follow-up for 90 days. Adjudicators of the primary end points were masked to treatment allocation. Patients with large-vessel intracranial occlusion AIS presenting with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of at least 8 within 8 hours of onset underwent 1:1 randomization to 3-D stent retriever with aspiration or aspiration alone. The primary analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population. Interventions Mechanical thrombectomy using intracranial aspiration with or without the 3-D stent retriever. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary effectiveness end point was the rate of a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) grade of 2 to 3 with a 15% noninferiority margin. Device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 24 hours were the primary safety end points. Results Of 8082 patients screened, 198 patients were enrolled (111 women [56.1%] and 87 men [43.9%]; mean [SD] age, 66.9 [13.0] years) and randomized, including 98 in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group and 100 in the aspiration alone group; an additional 238 patients were eligible but not enrolled. The median baseline NIHSS score was 18.0 (interquartile range, 14.0-23.0). Eighty-two of 94 patients in the 3-D stent retriever and aspiration group (87.2%) had an mTICI grade of 2 to 3 compared with 79 of 96 in the aspiration alone group (82.3%; difference, 4.9%; 90% CI, −3.6% to 13.5%). None of the other measures were significantly different between the 2 groups. Device-related serious adverse events were reported by 4 of 98 patients in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group (4.1%) vs 5 of 100 patients in the aspiration only group (5.0%); procedure-related serious adverse events, 10 of 98 (10.2%) vs 14 of 100 (14.0%). A 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 was reported by 39 of 86 patients in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group (45.3%) vs 44 of 96 patients in the aspiration only group (45.8%). Conclusions and Relevance The present study provides class 1 evidence for the noninferiority of the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration vs aspiration alone in AIS. Future trials should evaluate whether these results can be generalized to other stent retrievers. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01584609