Characteristics of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The concept of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) unifies a subgroup of cryptogenic strokes based on neuroimaging, a defined minimum set of diagnostic tests, and exclusion of certain causes. Despite an annual stroke recurrence rate of 5%, little is known about the etiology underlying recurrent stroke after ESUS. Objective: To identify the stroke subtype of recurrent ischemic strokes after ESUS, to explore the interaction with treatment assignment in each category, and to examine the consistency of cerebral location of qualifying ESUS and recurrent ischemic stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: The NAVIGATE-ESUS trial was a randomized clinical trial conducted from December 23, 2014, to October 5, 2017. The trial compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with recent ESUS (n = 7213). Ischemic stroke was validated in 309 of the 7213 patients by adjudicators blinded to treatment assignment and classified by local investigators into the categories ESUS or non-ESUS (ie, cardioembolic, atherosclerotic, lacunar, other determined cause, or insufficient testing). Five patients with recurrent strokes that could not be defined as ischemic or hemorrhagic in absence of neuroimaging or autopsy were excluded. Data for this secondary post hoc analysis were analyzed from March to June 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 15 mg/d, or aspirin, 100 mg/d. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of recurrent ESUS with stroke characteristics. Results: A total of 309 patients (205 men [66%]; mean [SD] age, 68 [10] years) had ischemic stroke identified during the median follow-up of 11 (interquartile range [IQR], 12) months (annualized rate, 4.6%). Diagnostic testing was insufficient for etiological classification in 39 patients (13%). Of 270 classifiable ischemic strokes, 156 (58%) were ESUS and 114 (42%) were non-ESUS (37 [32%] cardioembolic, 26 [23%] atherosclerotic, 35 [31%] lacunar, and 16 [14%] other determined cause). Atrial fibrillation was found in 27 patients (9%) with recurrent ischemic stroke and was associated with higher morbidity (median change in modified Rankin scale score 2 [IQR, 3] vs 0 (IQR, 1]) and mortality (15% vs 1%) than other causes. Risk of recurrence did not differ significantly by subtype between treatment groups. For both the qualifying and recurrent strokes, location of infarct was more often in the left (46% and 54%, respectively) than right hemisphere (40% and 37%, respectively) or brainstem or cerebellum (14% and 9%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial data, most recurrent strokes after ESUS were embolic and of undetermined source. Recurrences associated with atrial fibrillation were a minority but were more often disabling and fatal. More extensive investigation to identify the embolic source is important toward an effective antithrombotic strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02313909

Oral anticoagulant re-initiation following intracerebral hemorrhage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Global survey of the practices of neurologists, neurosurgeons and thrombosis experts

<div><p>Background</p><p>While oral anticoagulants (OACs) are highly effective for ischemic stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains the most feared complication of OAC. Clinical controversy remains regarding OAC resumption and its timing for ICH survivors with atrial fibrillation because the balance between risks and benefits has not been investigated in randomized trials.</p><p>Aims/Hypothesis</p><p>To survey the practice of stroke neurologists, thrombosis experts and neurosurgeons on OAC re-initiation following OAC-associated ICH.</p><p>Methods</p><p>An online survey was distributed to members of the International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Canadian Stroke Consortium, NAVIGATE-ESUS trial investigators (Clinicatrials.gov identifier NCT02313909) and American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Demographic factors and 11 clinical scenarios were included.</p><p>Results</p><p>Two hundred twenty-eight participants from 38 countries completed the survey. Majority of participants were affiliated with academic centers, and >20% managed more than 15 OAC-associated ICH patients/year. Proportion of respondents suggesting OAC anticoagulant resumption varied from 30% (for cerebral amyloid angiopathy) to 98% (for traumatic ICH). Within this group, there was wide distribution in response for timing of resumption: 21.4% preferred to re-start OACs after 1–3 weeks of incident ICH, while 25.3% opted to start after 1–3 months. Neurosurgery respondents preferred earlier OAC resumption compared to stroke neurologists or thrombosis experts in 5 scenarios (p<0.05 by Kendall’s tau).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Wide variations in current practice exist among management of OAC-associated ICH, with decisions influenced by patient- and provider-related factors. As these variations likely reflect the lack of high quality evidence, randomized trials are direly needed in this population.</p></div

Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Global COVID-19 Stroke Registry.

Recent case-series of small size implied a pathophysiological association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe large-vessel acute ischemic stroke. Given that severe strokes are typically associated with poor prognosis and can be very efficiently treated with recanalization techniques, confirmation of this putative association is urgently warranted in a large representative patient cohort to alert stroke clinicians, and inform pre- and in-hospital acute stroke patient pathways. We pooled all consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke in 28 sites from 16 countries. To assess whether stroke severity and outcomes (assessed at discharge or at the latest assessment for those patients still hospitalized) in patients with acute ischemic stroke are different between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching analyses of our COVID-19 patients with non-COVID-19 patients registered in the Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne Registry between 2003 and 2019. Between January 27, 2020, and May 19, 2020, 174 patients (median age 71.2 years; 37.9% females) with COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke were hospitalized (median of 12 patients per site). The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-18). In the 1:1 matched sample of 336 patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was higher in patients with COVID-19 (10 [IQR, 4-18] versus 6 [IQR, 3-14]), P=0.03; (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.08-2.65] for higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score). There were 48 (27.6%) deaths, of which 22 were attributed to COVID-19 and 26 to stroke. Among 96 survivors with available information about disability status, 49 (51%) had severe disability at discharge. In the propensity score-matched population (n=330), patients with COVID-19 had higher risk for severe disability (median mRS 4 [IQR, 2-6] versus 2 [IQR, 1-4], P&lt;0.001) and death (odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.22-8.30]) compared with patients without COVID-19. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 associated ischemic strokes are more severe with worse functional outcome and higher mortality than non-COVID-19 ischemic strokes

Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Global COVID-19 Stroke Registry

Recent case-series of small size implied a pathophysiological association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe large-vessel acute ischemic stroke. Given that severe strokes are typically associated with poor prognosis and can be very efficiently treated with recanalization techniques, confirmation of this putative association is urgently warranted in a large representative patient cohort to alert stroke clinicians, and inform pre- and in-hospital acute stroke patient pathways. We pooled all consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke in 28 sites from 16 countries. To assess whether stroke severity and outcomes (assessed at discharge or at the latest assessment for those patients still hospitalized) in patients with acute ischemic stroke are different between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching analyses of our COVID-19 patients with non-COVID-19 patients registered in the Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne Registry between 2003 and 2019. Between January 27, 2020, and May 19, 2020, 174 patients (median age 71.2 years; 37.9% females) with COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke were hospitalized (median of 12 patients per site). The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-18). In the 1:1 matched sample of 336 patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was higher in patients with COVID-19 (10 [IQR, 4-18] versus 6 [IQR, 3-14]), P=0.03; (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.08-2.65] for higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score). There were 48 (27.6%) deaths, of which 22 were attributed to COVID-19 and 26 to stroke. Among 96 survivors with available information about disability status, 49 (51%) had severe disability at discharge. In the propensity score-matched population (n=330), patients with COVID-19 had higher risk for severe disability (median mRS 4 [IQR, 2-6] versus 2 [IQR, 1-4], P<0.001) and death (odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.22-8.30]) compared with patients without COVID-19. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 associated ischemic strokes are more severe with worse functional outcome and higher mortality than non-COVID-19 ischemic strokes

Consensus statements and recommendations from the ESO-Karolinska Stroke Update Conference, Stockholm 11-13 November 2018

The purpose of the European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Conference is to provide updates on recent stroke therapy research and to give an opportunity for the participants to discuss how these results may be implemented into clinical routine. The meeting started 22 years ago as Karolinska Stroke Update, but since 2014 it is a joint conference with European Stroke Organisation. Importantly, it provides a platform for discussion on the European Stroke Organisation guidelines process and on recommendations to the European Stroke Organisation guidelines committee on specific topics. By this, it adds a direct influence from stroke professionals otherwise not involved in committees and work groups on the guideline procedure. The discussions at the conference may also inspire new guidelines when motivated. The topics raised at the meeting are selected by the scientific programme committee mainly based on recent important scientific publications. This year's European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Meeting was held in Stockholm on 11-13 November 2018. There were 11 scientific sessions discussed in the meeting including two short sessions. Each session except the short sessions produced a consensus statement (Full version with background, issues, conclusions and references are published as web-material and at and ) and recommendations which were prepared by a writing committee consisting of session chair(s), scientific secretary and speakers. These statements were presented to the 250 participants of the meeting. In the open meeting, general participants commented on the consensus statement and recommendations and the final document were adjusted based on the discussion from the general participants Recommendations (grade of evidence) were graded according to the 1998 Karolinska Stroke Update meeting with regard to the strength of evidence. Grade A Evidence: Strong support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (at least one randomised controlled trial plus one statistical review). Grade B Evidence: Support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (one randomised controlled trial or one statistical review). Grade C Evidence: No reasonable support from randomised controlled trials, recommendations based on small randomised and/or non-randomised controlled trials evidence.Peer reviewe

Embolic stroke of undetermined source and atrial cardiopathy: Towards a personalized antithrombotic strategy for secondary stroke prevention

[No abstract available

Corrigendum to ‘External Validation of the PREMISE Score in the Athens Stroke Registry’ (Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases (2019) 28(7) (1806–1809), (S1052305719301922), (10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.04.023))

The authors regret the following mistake in the reference list: the reference No 1 is wrong and should be substituted with the following one: Gattringer T, Posekany A, Niederkorn K, Knoflach M, Poltrum B, Mutzenbach S, et al. Predicting Early Mortality of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation. 2019;50:349-56. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. © 2019 Elsevier Inc