Intravenous alteplase for stroke with unknown time of onset guided by advanced imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: Patients who have had a stroke with unknown time of onset have been previously excluded from thrombolysis. We aimed to establish whether intravenous alteplase is safe and effective in such patients when salvageable tissue has been identified with imaging biomarkers. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data for trials published before Sept 21, 2020. Randomised trials of intravenous alteplase versus standard of care or placebo in adults with stroke with unknown time of onset with perfusion-diffusion MRI, perfusion CT, or MRI with diffusion weighted imaging-fluid attenuated inversion recovery (DWI-FLAIR) mismatch were eligible. The primary outcome was favourable functional outcome (score of 0–1 on the modified Rankin Scale [mRS]) at 90 days indicating no disability using an unconditional mixed-effect logistic-regression model fitted to estimate the treatment effect. Secondary outcomes were mRS shift towards a better functional outcome and independent outcome (mRS 0–2) at 90 days. Safety outcomes included death, severe disability or death (mRS score 4–6), and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020166903. Findings: Of 249 identified abstracts, four trials met our eligibility criteria for inclusion: WAKE-UP, EXTEND, THAWS, and ECASS-4. The four trials provided individual patient data for 843 individuals, of whom 429 (51%) were assigned to alteplase and 414 (49%) to placebo or standard care. A favourable outcome occurred in 199 (47%) of 420 patients with alteplase and in 160 (39%) of 409 patients among controls (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·49 [95% CI 1·10–2·03]; p=0·011), with low heterogeneity across studies (I2=27%). Alteplase was associated with a significant shift towards better functional outcome (adjusted common OR 1·38 [95% CI 1·05–1·80]; p=0·019), and a higher odds of independent outcome (adjusted OR 1·50 [1·06–2·12]; p=0·022). In the alteplase group, 90 (21%) patients were severely disabled or died (mRS score 4–6), compared with 102 (25%) patients in the control group (adjusted OR 0·76 [0·52–1·11]; p=0·15). 27 (6%) patients died in the alteplase group and 14 (3%) patients died among controls (adjusted OR 2·06 [1·03–4·09]; p=0·040). The prevalence of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was higher in the alteplase group than among controls (11 [3%] vs two [<1%], adjusted OR 5·58 [1·22–25·50]; p=0·024). Interpretation: In patients who have had a stroke with unknown time of onset with a DWI-FLAIR or perfusion mismatch, intravenous alteplase resulted in better functional outcome at 90 days than placebo or standard care. A net benefit was observed for all functional outcomes despite an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. Although there were more deaths with alteplase than placebo, there were fewer cases of severe disability or death. Funding: None

REPORTAJE CARMELO ARTILES BOLAÑOS. OBRAS EN TAFIRA U.L.P.G.C. [Material gráfico]

Copia digital. Madrid : Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 201

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

MRI-Guided Thrombolysis for Stroke with Unknown Time of Onset

BACKGROUND: Under current guidelines, intravenous thrombolysis is used to treat acute stroke only if it can be ascertained that the time since the onset of symptoms was less than 4.5 hours. We sought to determine whether patients with stroke with an unknown time of onset and features suggesting recent cerebral infarction on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would benefit from thrombolysis with the use of intravenous alteplase. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients who had an unknown time of onset of stroke to receive either intravenous alteplase or placebo. All the patients had an ischemic lesion that was visible on MRI diffusion-weighted imaging but no parenchymal hyperintensity on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), which indicated that the stroke had occurred approximately within the previous 4.5 hours. We excluded patients for whom thrombectomy was planned. The primary end point was favorable outcome, as defined by a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale of neurologic disability (which ranges from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. A secondary outcome was the likelihood that alteplase would lead to lower ordinal scores on the modified Rankin scale than would placebo (shift analysis). RESULTS: The trial was stopped early owing to cessation of funding after the enrollment of 503 of an anticipated 800 patients. Of these patients, 254 were randomly assigned to receive alteplase and 249 to receive placebo. A favorable outcome at 90 days was reported in 131 of 246 patients (53.3%) in the alteplase group and in 102 of 244 patients (41.8%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 2.36; P=0.02). The median score on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 1 in the alteplase group and 2 in the placebo group (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.23; P=0.003). There were 10 deaths (4.1%) in the alteplase group and 3 (1.2%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 0.92 to 12.52; P=0.07). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was 2.0% in the alteplase group and 0.4% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% CI, 0.57 to 42.87; P=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute stroke with an unknown time of onset, intravenous alteplase guided by a mismatch between diffusion-weighted imaging and FLAIR in the region of ischemia resulted in a significantly better functional outcome and numerically more intracranial hemorrhages than placebo at 90 days. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program; WAKE-UP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01525290; and EudraCT number, 2011-005906-32 .).status: publishe

Functional Outcome of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Lacunar Infarcts in the WAKE-UP Trial

Importance: The rationale for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with lacunar infarcts is debated, since it is hypothesized that the microvascular occlusion underlying lacunar infarcts might not be susceptible to pharmacological reperfusion treatment. Objective: To study the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis among patients with lacunar infarcts. Design, Setting, and Participants: This exploratory secondary post hoc analysis of the WAKE-UP trial included patients who were screened and enrolled between September 2012 and June 2017 (with final follow-up in September 2017). The WAKE-UP trial was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial to study the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in patients with an acute stroke of unknown onset time, guided by magnetic resonance imaging. All 503 patients randomized in the WAKE-UP trial were reviewed for lacunar infarcts. Diagnosis of lacunar infarcts was based on magnetic resonance imaging and made by consensus of 2 independent investigators blinded to clinical information. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy variable was favorable outcome defined by a score of 0 to 1 on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days after stroke, adjusted for age and severity of symptoms. Results: Of the 503 patients randomized in the WAKE-UP trial, 108 patients (including 74 men [68.5%]) had imaging-defined lacunar infarcts, whereas 395 patients (including 251 men [63.5%]) had nonlacunar infarcts. Patients with lacunar infarcts were younger than patients with nonlacunar infarcts (mean age [SD], 63 [12] years vs 66 [12] years; P = .003). Of patients with lacunar infarcts, 55 (50.9%) were assigned to treatment with alteplase and 53 (49.1%) to receive placebo. Treatment with alteplase was associated with higher odds of favorable outcome, with no heterogeneity of treatment outcome between lacunar and nonlacunar stroke subtypes. In patients with lacunar strokes, a favorable outcome was observed in 31 of 53 patients (59%) in the alteplase group compared with 24 of 52 patients (46%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67 [95% CI, 0.77-3.64]). There was 1 death and 1 symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage according to Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study criteria in the alteplase group, while no death and no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the placebo group. The distribution of the modified Rankin Scale scores 90 days after stroke also showed a nonsignificant shift toward better outcomes in patients with lacunar infarcts treated with alteplase, with an adjusted common odds ratio of 1.94 (95% CI, 0.95-3.93). Conclusions and Relevance: While the WAKE-UP trial was not powered to demonstrate the efficacy of treatment in subgroups of patients, the results indicate that the association of intravenous alteplase with functional outcome does not differ in patients with imaging-defined lacunar infarcts compared with those experiencing other stroke subtypes

Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source

Embolic strokes of undetermined source represent 20% of ischemic strokes and are associated with a high rate of recurrence. Anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may result in a lower risk of recurrent stroke than aspirin. METHODS We compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 15 mg) with aspirin (at a daily dose of 100 mg) for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with recent ischemic stroke that was presumed to be from cerebral embolism but without arterial stenosis, lacune, or an identified cardioembolic source. The primary efficacy outcome was the first recurrence of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism in a time-to-event analysis; the primary safety outcome was the rate of major bleeding. RESULTS A total of 7213 participants were enrolled at 459 sites; 3609 patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban and 3604 to receive aspirin. Patients had been followed for a median of 11 months when the trial was terminated early because of a lack of benefit with regard to stroke risk and because of bleeding associated with rivaroxaban. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 172 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 5.1%) and in 160 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.8%) (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.33; P = 0.52). Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 158 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 4.7%) and in 156 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.7%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 1.8%) and in 23 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 0.7%) (hazard ratio, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.68 to 4.39; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Rivaroxaban was not superior to aspirin with regard to the prevention of recurrent stroke after an initial embolic stroke of undetermined source and was associated with a higher risk of bleeding

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Methods: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22–1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84–1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51–8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69–4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24–0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Interpretation: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. Funding: Bayer and Janssen

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Methods: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22–1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84–1·33; p interaction =0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51–8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69–4·70; p interaction =0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24–0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Interpretation: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. Funding: Bayer and Janssen

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Methods: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22-1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84-1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51-8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69-4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24-0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Interpretation: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted