Search

To report our experience in treating one patient with nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and concurrent acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessels occlusion (LVO). A man in his 50 s presented with acute right hemiparesis and aphasia. Brain CT showed a SAH in the left central sulcus; CT-angiography revealed a tandem occlusion of the left internal carotid artery and homolateral middle cerebral artery. He underwent an angiographic procedure with successful recanalization. Follow-up CT demonstrated a striatal-lenticular stroke without SAH progression. While the absolute contraindication to IVT during intracranial bleeding remains unquestionable, the potential injury/benefit from MT is still debatable. Such cases constitute a blind spot in the guidelines where physicians face the dilemma of choosing between an acute endovascular treatment with the risks of hemorrhage progression and a conservative treatment with the associated poor clinical outcome. We decided to treat our patient invasively, considering the young age, also given the absence of prognostic factors that generally predict post-procedural reperfusion injury. We believe that, in similar cases, MT should be considered—despite not free of risks and drawbacks—to avoid the detrimental consequences of untreated AIS from LVO.

To rationally plan acute services, the proportion of ischemic strokes that may be eligible for revascularization treatments should be estimated. We aimed to estimate the proportion of patients directly admitted to an Italian Comprehensive Stroke Center who may be eligible for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), combined IVT and endovascular thrombectomy (ET), or direct ET according to the current guidelines. We conducted a retrospective analysis based on data prospectively collected from 876 consecutive adult ischemic stroke patients who were directly admitted to the Stroke Unit of the University Hospital of Verona within 12 h of stroke onset. A theoretical model was created to calculate the proportion of patients potentially eligible for revascularization treatments. In our cohort, 289 (33%) patients would be eligible for IVT alone, 193 (22%) for combined IVT and ET, and 39 (4%) for direct ET with level of evidence IA according to the current guidelines. According to our theoretical model, more than half of the ischemic stroke patients directly admitted to Verona Stroke Unit within 12 h of stroke onset would be eligible for IVT and more than a quarter for ET. Systems of care should promptly organize to offer each patient the best treatment.

In clinical practice, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are often started earlier (≤ 7 days) than in randomized clinical trials after stroke. We aimed to develop a nomogram model incorporating time of DOAC introduction ≤ 7 days of stroke onset in combination with different degrees of stroke radiological/neurological severity at the time of treatment to predict the probability of unfavorable outcome. We conducted a multicenter prospective study including 344 patients who started DOAC 1–7 days after atrial fibrillation-related stroke onset. Computed tomography scan 24–36 h after stroke onset was performed in all patients before starting DOAC. Unfavorable outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score > 2 at 3 months. Based on multivariate logistic model, the nomogram was generated. We assessed the discriminative performance by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC–ROC) and calibration of risk prediction model by using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. Onset-to-treatment time for DOAC (OR: 1.21, p = 0.030), NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at the time of treatment (OR: 1.00 for NIHSS = 0–5; OR: 2.67, p = 0.016 for NIHSS = 6–9; OR: 26.70, p

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is the treatment of choice for most patients with acute ischemic stroke. According to the recently updated guidelines, IVT should be administered in absence of absolute exclusion criteria. We aimed to assess the proportion of ischemic strokes potentially eligible and actually treated with IVT, and to explore the reasons for not administering IVT. We prospectively collected and analyzed data from 1184 consecutive ischemic stroke patients admitted to the 22 Stroke Units (SUs) of the Veneto region from September 18th to December 10th 2017. Patients were treated with IVT according to the current Italian guidelines. For untreated patients, the reasons for not administering IVT were reported by each center in a predefined model including absolute and/or relative exclusion criteria and other possible reasons. Out of 841 (71%) patients who presented within 4.5 h of stroke onset, 704 (59%) had no other absolute exclusion criteria and were therefore potentially eligible for IVT according to the current guidelines. However, only 323 (27%) patients were eventually treated with IVT. Among 861 (73%) untreated patients, 480 had at least one absolute exclusion criterion, 283 only relative exclusion criteria, 56 only other reasons, and 42 a combination of relative exclusion criteria and other reasons. Our study showed that only 46% (323/704) of the potentially eligible patients were actually treated with IVT in the SUs of the Veneto region. All healthcare professionals involved in the acute stroke pathway should make an effort to bridge this gap between eligibility and reality.