Safety and feasibility of NeuroFlo use in eight- to 24-hour ischemic stroke patients.

BACKGROUND: Acute treatment of ischemic stroke patients presenting more than eight-hours after symptom onset remains limited and largely unproven. Partial aortic occlusion using the NeuroFlo catheter can augment cerebral perfusion in animals. We investigated the safety and feasibility of employing this novel catheter to treat ischemic stroke patients eight-hours to 24 h following symptom onset. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm trial enrolled ischemic stroke patients at nine international academic medical centers. Eligibility included age 18-85 years old, National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score between four and 20, within eight-hours to 24 h after symptom onset, and perfusion-diffusion mismatch confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. The primary outcome was all adverse events occurring from baseline to 30 days posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included stroke severity on neurological indices through 90 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00436592. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were enrolled. Of these, 25 received treatment (one excluded due to aortic morphology); five (20%) died. Favorable neurological outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin score 0-2 vs. 3-6) was associated with lower baseline NIHSS (P < 0·001) and with longer duration from symptom discovery to treatment. There were no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages or parenchymal hematomas. Asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was visible on computed tomography in 32% and only on microbleed in another 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Partial aortic occlusion using the NeuroFlo catheter, a novel collateral therapeutic strategy, appears safe and feasible in stroke patients eight-hours to 24 h after symptom onset

The smoking paradox in ischemic stroke patients treated with intra-arterial thrombolysis in combination with mechanical thrombectomy-VISTA-Endovascular

Background The smoking-paradox of a better outcome in ischemic stroke patients who smoke may be due to increased efficacy of thrombolysis. We investigated the effect of smoking on outcome following endovascular therapy (EVT) with mechanical thrombectomy alone versus in combination with intra-arterial (IA-) thrombolysis.Methods The primary endpoint was defined by three-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS). We performed a generalized linear model and reported relative risks (RR) for smoking (adjustment for age, sex, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, stroke severity, time to EVT) in patient data stemming from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive-Endovascular database.Results Among 1,497 patients, 740(49.4%) were randomized to EVT; among EVT patients, 524(35.0%) received mechanical thrombectomy alone and 216(14.4%) received it in combination with IA-thrombolysis. Smokers (N = 396) had lower mRS scores (mean 2.9 vs. 3.2; p = 0.02) and mortality rates (10% vs. 17.3%; p<0.001) in univariate analysis. In all patients and in patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy alone, smoking had no effect on outcome in regression analyses. In patients who received IA-thrombolysis (N = 216;14%), smoking had an adjusted RR of 1.65 for an mRS1 (95%CI 0.77-3.55). Treatment with IA-thrombolysis itself led to reduced RR for favorable outcome (adjusted RR 0.30); interaction analysis of IA-thrombolysis and smoking revealed that non-smokers with IA-thrombolysis had mRS <= 2 in 47 cases (30%, adjusted RR 0.53 [0.41-0.69]) while smokers with IA-thrombolysis had mRS <= 2 in 23 cases (38%, adjusted RR 0.61 [0.42-0.87]).Conclusions Smokers had no clear clinical benefit from EVT that incorporates IA-thrombolysis.Clinical epidemiolog

Reduced Mortality and Severe Disability Rates in the SENTIS Trial

The Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial showed a trend for reduced all-cause mortality and positive secondary safety end point outcomes. We present further analyses of the mortality and severe disability data from the Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke trial

Public Health and Cost Benefits of Successful Reperfusion After Thrombectomy for Stroke

Background and Purpose- The benefit that endovascular thrombectomy offers to patients with stroke with large vessel occlusions depends strongly on reperfusion grade as defined by the expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (eTICI) scale. Our aim was to determine the lifetime health and cost consequences of the quality of reperfusion for patients, healthcare systems, and society. Methods- A Markov model estimated lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and lifetime costs of endovascular thrombectomy-treated patients with stroke based on eTICI grades. The analysis was performed over a lifetime horizon in a United States setting, adopting healthcare and societal perspectives. The reference case analysis was conducted for stroke at 65 years of age. National health and cost consequences of improved eTICI 2c/3 reperfusion rates were estimated. Input parameters were based on best available evidence. Results- Lifetime QALYs increased for every grade of improved reperfusion (median QALYs for eTICI 0/1: 2.62; eTICI 2a: 3.46; eTICI 2b: 5.42; eTICI 2c: 5.99; eTICI 3: 6.73). Achieving eTICI 3 over eTICI 2b reperfusion resulted on average in 1.31 incremental QALYs as well as healthcare and societal cost savings of $10 327 and$20 224 per patient. A 10% increase in the eTICI 2c/3 reperfusion rate of all annually endovascular thrombectomy-treated patients with stroke in the United States is estimated to yield additional 3656 QALYs and save $21.0 million and$36.8 million for the healthcare system and society, respectively. Conclusions- Improved reperfusion grants patients with stroke additional QALYs and leads to long-term cost savings. Procedural strategies to achieve complete reperfusion should be assessed for safety and feasibility, even when initial reperfusion seems to be adequate

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

Call to Action: SARS-CoV-2 and CerebrovAscular DisordErs (CASCADE)

Background and purpose: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), now named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may change the risk of stroke through an enhanced systemic inflammatory response, hypercoagulable state, and endothelial damage in the cerebrovascular system. Moreover, due to the current pandemic, some countries have prioritized health resources towards COVID-19 management, making it more challenging to appropriately care for other potentially disabling and fatal diseases such as stroke. The aim of this study is to identify and describe changes in stroke epidemiological trends before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This is an international, multicenter, hospital-based study on stroke incidence and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will describe patterns in stroke management, stroke hospitalization rate, and stroke severity, subtype (ischemic/hemorrhagic), and outcomes (including in-hospital mortality) in 2020 during COVID-19 pandemic, comparing them with the corresponding data from 2018 and 2019, and subsequently 2021. We will also use an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to assess the change in stroke hospitalization rates before, during, and after COVID-19, in each participating center. Conclusion: The proposed study will potentially enable us to better understand the changes in stroke care protocols, differential hospitalization rate, and severity of stroke, as it pertains to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, this will help guide clinical-based policies surrounding COVID-19 and other similar global pandemics to ensure that management of cerebrovascular comorbidity is appropriately prioritized during the global crisis. It will also guide public health guidelines for at-risk populations to reduce risks of complications from such comorbidities. © 202

Systematic review of methods for assessing leptomeningeal collateral flow

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The importance of LMF in the outcome after acute ischemic stroke is increasingly recognized, but imaging presents a wide range of options for identification of collaterals and there is no single system for grading collateral flow. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the available methods for measuring LMF adequacy. &lt;p/&gt;MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Ovid, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for studies in which flow in the leptomeningeal collateral vessels was evaluated. Imaging technique, grading scale, and reliability assessment for collateral flow measurement were recorded. &lt;p/&gt;RESULTS: We found 81 publications describing 63 methods for grading collateral flow on the basis of conventional angiography (n = 41), CT (n = 7), MR imaging (n = 9), and transcranial Doppler (n = 6). Inter- and/or intraobserver agreement was assessed in only 8 publications. &lt;p/&gt;CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistency in how LMF is graded, with a variety of grading scales and imaging modalities being used. Consistency in evaluating collateral flow at baseline is required for the impact of collateral flow to be fully appreciated