Antithrombotic treatment for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack and non-valvular atrial fibrillation : A European Stroke Organisation guideline

Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and non-valvular atrial fibrillation have a high risk of recurrent stroke and other vascular events. The aim of this guideline is to provide recommendations on antithrombotic medication for secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular outcomes in these patients. The working group identified questions and outcomes, graded evidence, and developed recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) standard operating procedure for guidelines. The guideline was reviewed and approved by the ESO guideline board and the ESO executive committee. In patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of recurrence over antiplatelets or no antithrombotic treatment. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are preferred over vitamin K antagonists because they have a lower risk of major bleeding and death. Recommendations are weak regarding timing of treatment, (re-)starting oral anticoagulants in patients with previous intracerebral haemorrhage, and treatment in specific patient subgroups of those of older age, with cognitive impairment, renal failure or small vessel disease, because of a lack of strong evidence. In conclusion, for patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are the preferred treatment for secondary prevention of recurrent stroke or thromboembolism. Further research is required to determine the best timing for initiating oral anticoagulants after an acute ischemic stroke, whether or not oral anticoagulants should be (re)started in patients with a history of intracerebral haemorrhage, and the best secondary preventive treatment in specific subgroups.Peer reviewe

Statistical analysis plan for the randomized controlled trial Tenecteplase in Wake-up Ischaemic Stroke Trial (TWIST)

Background: Patients with wake-up ischemic stroke are frequently excluded from thrombolytic treatment due to unknown symptom onset time and limited availability of advanced imaging modalities. The Tenecteplase in Wake-up lschaemic Stroke Trial (TWIST) is a randomized controlled trial of intravenous tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg and standard care versus standard care alone (no thrombolysis) in patients who wake up with acute ischemic stroke and can be treated within 4.5 h of wakening based on non-contrast CT findings. Objective: To publish the detailed statistical analysis plan for TWIST prior to unblinding. Methods: The TWIST statistical analysis plan is consistent with the Consolidating Standard of Reporting Trials (CON-SORT) statement and provides clear and open reporting. Discussion: Publication of the statistical analysis plan serves to reduce potential trial reporting bias and clearly outlines the pre-specified analyses.Peer reviewe

Statistical analysis plan for the randomized controlled trial Tenecteplase in Wake-up Ischaemic Stroke Trial (TWIST)

Background: Patients with wake-up ischemic stroke are frequently excluded from thrombolytic treatment due to unknown symptom onset time and limited availability of advanced imaging modalities. The Tenecteplase in Wake-up lschaemic Stroke Trial (TWIST) is a randomized controlled trial of intravenous tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg and standard care versus standard care alone (no thrombolysis) in patients who wake up with acute ischemic stroke and can be treated within 4.5 h of wakening based on non-contrast CT findings. Objective: To publish the detailed statistical analysis plan for TWIST prior to unblinding. Methods: The TWIST statistical analysis plan is consistent with the Consolidating Standard of Reporting Trials (CON-SORT) statement and provides clear and open reporting. Discussion: Publication of the statistical analysis plan serves to reduce potential trial reporting bias and clearly outlines the pre-specified analyses.Peer reviewe

Sex differences in severity of stroke in the INSTRUCT Study: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

Background: Women have worse outcomes after stroke than men, and this may be partly explained by stroke severity. We examined factors contributing to sex differences in severity of acute stroke assessed by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Methods and Results: We pooled individual participant data with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale assessment (N=6343) from 8 population-based stroke incidence studies (1996-2014), forming part of INSTRUCT (International Stroke Outcomes Study). Information on sociodemographics, stroke-related clinical factors, comorbidities, and pre-stroke function were obtained. Within each study, relative risk regression using log-binominal modeling was used to estimate the female:male relative risk ( RR ) of more severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale>7) stratified by stroke type (ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage). Study-specific unadjusted and adjusted RR s, controlling for confounding variables, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale data were recorded in 5326 (96%) of 5570 cases with ischemic stroke and 773 (90%) of 855 participants with intracerebral hemorrhage. The pooled unadjusted female:male RR for severe ischemic stroke was 1.35 (95% CI 1.24-1.46). The sex difference in severity was attenuated after adjustment for age, pre-stroke dependency, and atrial fibrillation but remained statistically significant (pooled RRadjusted 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30). There was no sex difference in severity for intracerebral hemorrhage ( RRcrude 1.08, 95% CI 0.97-1.21; RRadjusted 1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.20). Conclusions: Although women presented with more severe ischemic stroke than men, much although not all of the difference was explained by pre-stroke factors. Sex differences could potentially be ameliorated by strategies to improve pre-stroke health in the elderly, the majority of whom are women. Further research on the potential biological origin of sex differences in stroke severity may also be warranted

BMJ Open

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, 2 million patients aged 18-50 years suffer a stroke each year, and this number is increasing. Knowledge about global distribution of risk factors and aetiologies, and information about prognosis and optimal secondary prevention in young stroke patients are limited. This limits evidence-based treatment and hampers the provision of appropriate information regarding the causes of stroke, risk factors and prognosis of young stroke patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Global Outcome Assessment Life-long after stroke in young adults (GOAL) initiative aims to perform a global individual patient data meta-analysis with existing data from young stroke cohorts worldwide. All patients aged 18-50 years with ischaemic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage will be included. Outcomes will be the distribution of stroke aetiology and (vascular) risk factors, functional outcome after stroke, risk of recurrent vascular events and death and finally the use of secondary prevention. Subgroup analyses will be made based on age, gender, aetiology, ethnicity and climate of residence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the GOAL study has already been obtained from the Medical Review Ethics Committee region Arnhem-Nijmegen. Additionally and when necessary, approval will also be obtained from national or local institutional review boards in the participating centres. When needed, a standardised data transfer agreement will be provided for participating centres. We plan dissemination of our results in peer-reviewed international scientific journals and through conference presentations. We expect that the results of this unique study will lead to better understanding of worldwide differences in risk factors, causes and outcome of young stroke patients

Global Outcome Assessment Life-long after stroke in young adults initiative-the GOAL initiative : study protocol and rationale of a multicentre retrospective individual patient data meta-analysis

Introduction Worldwide, 2 million patients aged 18-50 years suffer a stroke each year, and this number is increasing. Knowledge about global distribution of risk factors and aetiologies, and information about prognosis and optimal secondary prevention in young stroke patients are limited. This limits evidence-based treatment and hampers the provision of appropriate information regarding the causes of stroke, risk factors and prognosis of young stroke patients. Methods and analysis The Global Outcome Assessment Life-long after stroke in young adults (GOAL) initiative aims to perform a global individual patient data meta-analysis with existing data from young stroke cohorts worldwide. All patients aged 18-50 years with ischaemic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage will be included. Outcomes will be the distribution of stroke aetiology and (vascular) risk factors, functional outcome after stroke, risk of recurrent vascular events and death and finally the use of secondary prevention. Subgroup analyses will be made based on age, gender, aetiology, ethnicity and climate of residence.Peer reviewe

Primary stroke prevention worldwide : translating evidence into action

Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis ?erimagi? (Poliklinika Glavi?, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo Ant?nio, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Cz?onkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), Jo?o Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universit?rio de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gon?alves (Hospital S?o Jos? do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurj?ns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, ?zmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Micha? Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Migl?ne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis Čerimagić (Poliklinika Glavić, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Członkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), João Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gonçalves (Hospital São José do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurjāns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Michał Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Miglāne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: VLF declares that the PreventS web app and Stroke Riskometer app are owned and copyrighted by Auckland University of Technology; has received grants from the Brain Research New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (16/STH/36), Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; APP1182071), and World Stroke Organization (WSO); is an executive committee member of WSO, honorary medical director of Stroke Central New Zealand, and CEO of New Zealand Stroke Education charitable Trust. AGT declares funding from NHMRC (GNT1042600, GNT1122455, GNT1171966, GNT1143155, and GNT1182017), Stroke Foundation Australia (SG1807), and Heart Foundation Australia (VG102282); and board membership of the Stroke Foundation (Australia). SLG is funded by the National Health Foundation of Australia (Future Leader Fellowship 102061) and NHMRC (GNT1182071, GNT1143155, and GNT1128373). RM is supported by the Implementation Research Network in Stroke Care Quality of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (project CA18118) and by the IRIS-TEPUS project from the inter-excellence inter-cost programme of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (project LTC20051). BN declares receiving fees for data management committee work for SOCRATES and THALES trials for AstraZeneca and fees for data management committee work for NAVIGATE-ESUS trial from Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseStroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide and its burden is increasing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries, many of which are unable to face the challenges it imposes. In this Health Policy paper on primary stroke prevention, we provide an overview of the current situation regarding primary prevention services, estimate the cost of stroke and stroke prevention, and identify deficiencies in existing guidelines and gaps in primary prevention. We also offer a set of pragmatic solutions for implementation of primary stroke prevention, with an emphasis on the role of governments and population-wide strategies, including task-shifting and sharing and health system re-engineering. Implementation of primary stroke prevention involves patients, health professionals, funders, policy makers, implementation partners, and the entire population along the life course.publishersversionPeer reviewe

European Academy of Neurology and European Stroke Organization consensus statement and practical guidance for pre-hospital management of stroke

Background and purposeThe reduction of delay between onset and hospital arrival and adequate pre-hospital care of persons with acute stroke are important for improving the chances of a favourable outcome. The objective is to recommend evidence-based practices for the management of patients with suspected stroke in the pre-hospital setting. MethodsThe GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to define the key clinical questions. An expert panel then reviewed the literature, established the quality of the evidence, and made recommendations. ResultsDespite very low quality of evidence educational campaigns to increase the awareness of immediately calling emergency medical services are strongly recommended. Moderate quality evidence was found to support strong recommendations for the training of emergency medical personnel in recognizing the symptoms of a stroke and in implementation of a pre-hospital code stroke' including highest priority dispatch, pre-hospital notification and rapid transfer to the closest stroke-ready' centre. Insufficient evidence was found to recommend a pre-hospital stroke scale to predict large vessel occlusion. Despite the very low quality of evidence, restoring normoxia in patients with hypoxia is recommended, and blood pressure lowering drugs and treating hyperglycaemia with insulin should be avoided. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of mobile stroke units delivering intravenous thrombolysis at the scene. Because only feasibility studies have been reported, no recommendations can be provided for pre-hospital telemedicine during ambulance transport. ConclusionsThese guidelines inform on the contemporary approach to patients with suspected stroke in the pre-hospital setting. Further studies, preferably randomized controlled trials, are required to examine the impact of particular interventions on quality parameters and outcome. Click for the corresponding questions to this CME article

Global impact of COVID-19 on stroke care and IV thrombolysis

Objective To measure the global impact of COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of IV thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with 2 control 4-month periods. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes or classifications in stroke databases. Results There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] -11.7 to -11.3, p < 0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95% CI -13.8 to -12.7, p < 0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95% CI -13.7 to -10.3, p = 0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95% CI 9.2-9.8, p < 0.0001) was noted over the 2 later (May, June) vs the 2 earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID-19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months.Paroxysmal Cerebral Disorder