Search

BackgroundLoss of arm function is common after stroke. Robot-assisted training may improve arm outcomes.ObjectiveThe objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted training, compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care.DesignThis was a pragmatic, observer-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations.SettingThe trial was set in four NHS trial centres.ParticipantsPatients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years following first stroke, were recruited.InterventionsRobot-assisted training using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system (InMotion commercial version, Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme comprising repetitive functional task practice, and usual care.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was upper limb functional recovery ‘success’ (assessed using the Action Research Arm Test) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months were the Action Research Arm Test results, upper limb impairment (measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment), activities of daily living (measured using the Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index), quality of life (measured using the Stroke Impact Scale), resource use costs and quality-adjusted life-years.ResultsA total of 770 participants were randomised (robot-assisted training,n = 257; enhanced upper limb therapy,n = 259; usual care,n = 254). Upper limb functional recovery ‘success’ was achieved in the robot-assisted training [103/232 (44%)], enhanced upper limb therapy [118/234 (50%)] and usual care groups [85/203 (42%)]. These differences were not statistically significant; the adjusted odds ratios were as follows: robot-assisted training versus usual care, 1.2 (98.33% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.0); enhanced upper limb therapy versus usual care, 1.5 (98.33% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.5); and robot-assisted training versus enhanced upper limb therapy, 0.8 (98.33% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3). The robot-assisted training group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale) than the usual care group at 3 and 6 months. The enhanced upper limb therapy group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale), better mobility (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale mobility domain) and better performance in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the usual care group, at 3 months. The robot-assisted training group performed less well in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the enhanced upper limb therapy group at 3 months. No other differences were clinically important and statistically significant. Participants found the robot-assisted training and the enhanced upper limb therapy group programmes acceptable. Neither intervention, as provided in this trial, was cost-effective at current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence willingness-to-pay thresholds for a quality-adjusted life-year.ConclusionsRobot-assisted training did not improve upper limb function compared with usual care. Although robot-assisted training improved upper limb impairment, this did not translate into improvements in other outcomes. Enhanced upper limb therapy resulted in potentially important improvements on upper limb impairment, in performance of activities of daily living, and in mobility. Neither intervention was cost-effective.Future workFurther research is needed to find ways to translate the improvements in upper limb impairment seen with robot-assisted training into improvements in upper limb function and activities of daily living. Innovations to make rehabilitation programmes more cost-effective are required.LimitationsPragmatic inclusion criteria led to the recruitment of some participants with little prospect of recovery. The attrition rate was higher in the usual care group than in the robot-assisted training or enhanced upper limb therapy groups, and differential attrition is a potential source of bias. Obtaining accurate information about the usual care that participants were receiving was a challenge.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN69371850.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective: To report the fidelity of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after stroke (RATULS) randomized controlled trial, the types of goals selected and the proportion of goals achieved. Design: Descriptive analysis of data on fidelity, goal selection and achievement from an intervention group within a randomized controlled trial. Setting: Out-patient stroke rehabilitation within four UK NHS centres. Subjects: 259 participants with moderate-severe upper limb activity limitation (Action Research Arm Test 0–39) between one week and five years post first stroke. Intervention: The enhanced upper limb therapy programme aimed to provide 36 one-hour sessions, including 45 minutes of face-to-face therapy focusing on personal goals, over 12 weeks. Results: 7877/9324 (84%) sessions were attended; a median of 34 [IQR 29–36] per participant. A median of 127 [IQR 70–190] repetitions were achieved per participant per session attended. Based upon the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, goal categories were: self-care 1449/2664 (54%); productivity 374/2664 (14%); leisure 180/2664 (7%) and ‘other’ 661/2664 (25%). For the 2051/2664 goals for which data were available, 1287 (51%) were achieved, ranging between 27% by participants more than 12 months post stroke with baseline Action Research Arm Test scores 0–7, and 88% by those less than three months after stroke with scores 8–19. Conclusions: Intervention fidelity was high. Goals relating to self-care were most commonly selected. The proportion of goals achieved varied, depending on time post stroke and baseline arm activity limitation.

Background Study was a PROBE design phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT). We assessed trial feasibility and technical efficacy and safety of two novel thrombectomy devices – ERIC (a retriever device) and SOFIA (a distal access catheter) – used alone or in combination depending on operator preference. Methods Four UK neuroscience centers enrolled adults with proximal large artery occlusion (LAO) stroke on imaging where arterial puncture was achievable within 5.5 hours (8.5 hours for posterior circulation) of symptom onset; National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥6 with limited ischemic change on CT imaging. Randomization was 2:1 into intervention arm (ERIC and/or SOFIA). Patients and core lab were blinded to allocation. Primary outcome was independent core lab adjudication of reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) scale). Secondary outcomes were modified Rankin score (mRS) at 90 and 365 days (independence and shift analysis), 30-day mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), procedural complications and NIHSS change. Results Sixty-six patients were enrolled. TICI 2B/3 reperfusion was achieved in 72% in intervention compared with 90% in control arm on intention to treat (ITT) analysis (P=0.2) and 78% compared with 86% on per protocol analysis (P=0.7). Functional independence at 90 days was 40% (intervention) compared with 43% (control) on ITT analysis (P=1.0). sICH rates were low at 0% and 5%, respectively (P=0.3). The 30-day mortality was 9% intervention compared with 14% control (P=0.7). Conclusions Study indicated feasibility of a phase II RCT trial approach for assessing new thrombectomy devices. In a broad LAO stroke population ERIC and SOFIA were not statistically different from control devices. Larger trials are needed.

Introduction Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke therapies are varied and inconsistently described. An objective of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Health Economics Working Group is to standardise and improve the economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Methods The ESO Health Economics Working Group and additional experts were contacted to develop a protocol and a guidance document for data collection for economic evaluations of stroke therapies. A modified Delphi approach, including a survey and consensus processes, was used to agree on content. We also asked the participants about resources that could be shared to improve economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Results Of 28 experts invited, 16 (57%) completed the initial survey, with representation from universities, government, and industry. More than half of the survey respondents endorsed 13 specific items to include in a standard resource use questionnaire. Preferred functional/quality of life outcome measures to use for economic evaluations were the modified Rankin Scale (14 respondents, 88%) and the EQ-5D instrument (11 respondents, 69%). Of the 12 respondents who had access to data used in economic evaluations, 10 (83%) indicated a willingness to share data. A protocol template and a guidance document for data collection were developed and are presented in this article. Conclusion The protocol template and guidance document for data collection will support a more standardised and transparent approach for economic evaluations of stroke care.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background and Purpose— There is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation to meet the longer term needs of stroke survivors. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) provided following early supported discharge were determined. Methods— EXTRAS was a pragmatic parallel-group observer-blind randomized controlled trial involving 19 UK centers. Patients with stroke were individually randomized to receive EXTRAS or usual care at discharge from early supported discharge. Five EXTRAS reviews were provided by an early supported discharge team member between one and 18 months, usually by telephone. Reviews consisted of a semi-structured interview assessing progress, rehabilitation needs, and service provision, with goal setting and action planning. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham EADL Scale) at 24 months post-randomization. The Nottingham EADL Scale is scored 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance in these activities. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilization costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years. Analyses were intention to treat. Results— Between January 9, 2013 and October 26, 2015, 573 participants were randomized (EXTRAS, n=285; usual care, n=288). Mean 24 month Nottingham EADL Scale scores were EXTRAS (n=219) 40.0 (SD 18.1) and usual care (n=231) 37.2 (SD 18.5) giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI, –0.7 to 4.2). 1155/1338 (86%) of expected EXTRAS reviews were undertaken. Over 24 months, the mean cost of resource utilization was lower in the intervention group: –£311 (–$450 [95% CI, −£3292 to £2787; −$4764 to $4033]). EXTRAS provided more Quality Adjusted Life Years (0.07 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]). At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay (£20 000 [$28 940] per Quality Adjusted Life Years), there was a 90% chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Conclusions— EXTRAS did not significantly improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, given the impact on costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years, EXTRAS may be an affordable addition to improve stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN45203373.

Background We have previously modelled that the optimal number of comprehensive stroke centres (CSC) providing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in England would be 30 (net 6 new centres). We now estimate the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of increasing the number of centres from 24 to 30. Methods We constructed a discrete event simulation (DES) to estimate the effectiveness and lifetime cost-effectiveness (from a payer perspective) using 1 year’s incidence of stroke in England. 2000 iterations of the simulation were performed comparing baseline 24 centres to 30. Results Of 80,800 patients admitted to hospital with acute stroke/year, 21,740 would be affected by the service reconfiguration. The median time to treatment for eligible early presenters ( Conclusion Changes in acute stroke service configuration will produce clinical and cost benefits when the time taken for patients to receive treatment is reduced. Benefits are highly likely to be cost saving over 5 years before any capital investment above £8 million is required.

Summary Background Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care. Methods RATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850. Findings Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70–1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90–2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48–1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention. Interpretation Robot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Background and Purpose— Hyperglycemia is a negative prognostic factor after acute ischemic stroke but is not known whether glucose is associated with the effects of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with large-vessel stroke. In a pooled-data meta-analysis, we analyzed whether serum glucose is a treatment modifier of the efficacy of EVT in acute stroke. Methods— Seven randomized trials compared EVT with standard care between 2010 and 2017 (HERMES Collaboration [highly effective reperfusion using multiple endovascular devices]). One thousand seven hundred and sixty-four patients with large-vessel stroke were allocated to EVT (n=871) or standard care (n=893). Measurements included blood glucose on admission and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale range, 0–6; lower scores indicating less disability) at 3 months. The primary analysis evaluated whether glucose modified the effect of EVT over standard care on functional outcome, using ordinal logistic regression to test the interaction between treatment and glucose level. Results— Median (interquartile range) serum glucose on admission was 120 (104–140) mg/dL (6.6 mmol/L [5.7–7.7] mmol/L). EVT was better than standard care in the overall pooled-data analysis adjusted common odds ratio (acOR), 2.00 (95% CI, 1.69–2.38); however, lower glucose levels were associated with greater effects of EVT over standard care. The interaction was nonlinear such that significant interactions were found in subgroups of patients split at glucose < or >90 mg/dL (5.0 mmol/L; P =0.019 for interaction; acOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.73–8.41 for patients < 90 mg/dL versus 1.83; 95% CI, 1.53–2.19 for patients >90 mg/dL), and glucose < or >100 mg/dL (5.5 mmol/L; P =0.004 for interaction; acOR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.04–4.93 versus acOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.42–2.08) but not between subgroups above these levels of glucose. Conclusions— EVT improved stroke outcomes compared with standard treatment regardless of glucose levels, but the treatment effects were larger at lower glucose levels, with significant interaction effects persisting up to 90 to 100 mg/dL (5.0–5.5 mmol/L). Whether tight control of glucose improves the efficacy of EVT after large-vessel stroke warrants appropriate testing.

ObjectiveTo determine whether robot-assisted training is cost-effective compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme or usual care.DesignEconomic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial.SettingFour National Health Service (NHS) centres in the UK: Queen’s Hospital, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Northwick Park Hospital, London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde; and North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.Participants770 participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation from first-ever stroke.InterventionsParticipants randomised to one of three programmes provided over a 12-week period: robot-assisted training plus usual care; the EULT programme plus usual care or usual care.Main economic outcome measuresMean healthcare resource use; costs to the NHS and personal social services in 2018 pounds; utility scores based on EQ-5D-5L responses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness reported as incremental cost per QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsAt 6 months, on average usual care was the least costly option (£3785) followed by EULT (£4451) with robot-assisted training being the most costly (£5387). The mean difference in total costs between the usual care and robot-assisted training groups (£1601) was statistically significant (pConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that neither robot-assisted training nor EULT, as delivered in this trial, were likely to be cost-effective at any of the cost per QALY thresholds considered.Trial registration numberISRCTN69371850.

Background The Paramedic Acute Stroke Treatment Assessment (PASTA) trial evaluated an enhanced emergency care pathway which aimed to facilitate thrombolysis in hospital. A pre-planned health economic evaluation was included. The main results showed no statistical evidence of a difference in either thrombolysis volume (primary outcome) or 90-day dependency. However, counter-intuitive findings were observed with the intervention group showing fewer thrombolysis treatments but less dependency. Aims Cost-effectiveness of the PASTA intervention was examined relative to standard care. Methods A within trial cost-utility analysis estimated mean costs and quality-adjusted life years over 90 days’ time horizon. Costs were derived from resource utilization data for individual trial participants. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated by mapping modified Rankin scale scores to EQ-5D-3L utility tariffs. A post-hoc subgroup analysis examined cost-effectiveness when trial hospitals were divided into compliant and non-compliant with recommendations for a stroke specialist thrombolysis rota. Results The trial enrolled 1214 patients: 500 PASTA and 714 standard care. There was no evidence of a quality-adjusted life year difference between groups [0·007 (95% CI: −0·003 to 0·018)] but costs were lower in the PASTA group [−£1473 (95% CI: −£2736 to −£219)]. There was over 97.5% chance that the PASTA pathway would be considered cost-effective. There was no evidence of a difference in costs at seven thrombolysis rota compliant hospitals but costs at eight non-complaint hospitals costs were lower in PASTA with more dominant cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Analyses indicate that the PASTA pathway may be considered cost-effective, particularly if deployed in areas where stroke specialist availability is limited. Trial Registration: ISRCTN12418919 www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12418919

BackgroundMechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a time-sensitive emergency procedure for patients who had ischaemic stroke leading to improved health outcomes. Health systems need to ensure that MT is delivered to as many patients as quickly as possible. Using decision modelling, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secondary transfer by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) of rural patients eligible for MT in England.MethodsThe model consisted of (1) a short-run decision tree with two branches, representing secondary transfer transportation strategies and (2) a long-run Markov model for a theoretical population of rural patients with a confirmed ischaemic stroke. Strategies were compared by lifetime costs: quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost per QALY gained and net monetary benefit. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored uncertainty around parameter values.ResultsWe used the base case of early-presenting (6 hours to arterial puncture), ground transportation is the dominant strategy.ConclusionOur model indicates that using HEMS to transfer patients who had stroke eligible for MT from remote hospitals in England may be cost-effective when: travel time is reduced by at least 60 min compared with GEMS, and a £30 000/QALY threshold is used for decision-making. However, several other logistic considerations may impact on the use of air transportation.

Background Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. Aims To determine the cost-effectiveness, value of future research, and value of implementation of mechanical thrombectomy. Methods Using UK clinical and cost data from the Pragmatic Ischemic Stroke Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) trial, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy over time horizons of 90-days and lifetime, based on a decision-analytic model, using all existing evidence. We performed a meta-analysis of seven clinical trials to estimate treatment effects. We used sensitivity analysis to address uncertainty. Value of implementation analysis was used to estimate the potential value of additional implementation activities to support routine delivery of mechanical thrombectomy. Results Over the trial period (90 days), compared with best medical care alone, mechanical thrombectomy incurred an incremental cost of £5207 and 0.025 gain in QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £205,279), which would not be considered cost-effective. However, mechanical thrombectomy was shown to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon, with an ICER of £3466 per QALY gained. The expected value of perfect information per patient eligible for mechanical thrombectomy in the UK is estimated at £3178. The expected value of full implementation of mechanical thrombectomy is estimated at £1.3 billion over five years. Conclusion Mechanical thrombectomy was cost-effective compared with best medical care alone over a patient’s lifetime. On the assumption of 30% implementation being achieved throughout the UK healthcare system, we estimate that the population health benefits obtained from this treatment are greater than the cost of implementation. Trial registration NCT01745692.

As clinical researchers in stroke we applaud the rapid mobilisation of research into covid-19 in response to this new global threat.1 Nearly 100 urgent research studies in covid-19 have been approved over the past few weeks, many of them complex trials that would have taken months or years to start before the pandemic.2 This has been made possible, in part, by streamlined and proportionate regulation and approvals. But …

Background There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers. Objective To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS). Design A pragmatic, observer-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive EXTRAS or usual care. Setting Nineteen NHS study centres. Participants Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers. Interventions Five EXTRAS reviews provided by an early supported discharge team member between 1 and 18 months post early supported discharge, usually over the telephone. Reviewers assessed rehabilitation needs, with goal-setting and action-planning. Control treatment was usual care post early supported discharge. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale) at 24 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 12 and 24 months included patient mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), health status (Oxford Handicap Scale), experience of services and adverse events. For carers, secondary outcomes included carers’ strain (Caregiver Strain Index) and experience of services. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilisation costs (adaptation of the Client Service Receipt Inventory) and quality-adjusted life-years. Results A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS, n = 285; usual care, n = 288) with 194 carers (EXTRAS, n = 103; usual care, n = 91) were randomised. Mean 24-month Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were 40.0 (standard deviation 18.1) for EXTRAS (n = 219) and 37.2 (standard deviation 18.5) for usual care (n = 231), giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% confidence interval –0.7 to 4.2). The mean intervention group Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. The intervention did not improve patient health status or carer strain. EXTRAS patients and carers reported greater satisfaction with some aspects of care. The mean cost of resource utilisation was lower in the intervention group: –£311 (95% confidence interval –£3292 to £2787), with a 68% chance of EXTRAS being cost-saving. EXTRAS was associated with 0.07 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12) additional quality-adjusted life-years. At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year, there is a 90% chance that EXTRAS is cost-effective. Conclusions EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living but did improve their overall satisfaction with services. Given the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life-years, there is a high chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Future work Further research is required to identify whether or not community-based interventions can improve performance of extended activities of daily living, and to understand the improvements in health-related quality of life and costs seen by provision of intermittent longer-term specialist review. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Outcomes for acute ischaemic stroke patients with large artery occlusion are significantly improved with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). We aimed to identify preferences of stroke survivors, their relatives/carers and the public in England on: (i) EVT service organisation (localised versus centralised expert-delivered EVT services) and (ii) modelled outcomes for EVT effectiveness, equity of access and costs of EVT provision (based on increasing the number of comprehensive stroke centres across England that provide EVT from 24 to 30).Methods Stroke survivors, their relatives/carers and the public were engaged in an iterative co-design process to develop an accessible survey incorporating two Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) tasks: EVT service organisation (4 attributes each with 2 levels) and modelled outcomes (3 attributes each with 2 levels). On-line pilot testing was undertaken with 10 stroke survivors/carers. BWS data were transformed into standardised scores with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results 105 respondents completed the survey (stroke survivors [18%]; relative/carer of stroke survivor [32%]; member of public [50%]). Centralised (local) EVT provision by experienced and specialised medical teams was associated with the strongest positive preference (0.76, 95% CIs = 0.69, 0.82), followed by secondary inter-hospital transfer for EVT; associated with positive preferences whether required (0.15, 95% CIs = 0.07, 0.22) or not (0.30, 95% CIs = 0.22, 0.38). Travel times by emergency ambulance > 45 min (-0.29, 95% CIs=-0.37, -0.22) were associated with stronger negative preferences than length of stay

Introduction The clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for the treatment of large vessel occlusion stroke is well established, but uncertainty remains around the true cost of delivering this treatment within the NHS. The aim of this study was to establish the cost of providing MT within the hyperacute phase of care and to explore differences in resources used and costs across different neuroscience centres in the UK. Method This was a multicentre retrospective study using micro-costing methods to enable a precise assessment of the costs of MT from an NHS perspective. Data on resources used and their costs were collected from five UK neuroscience centres between 2015 and 2018. Results Data were collected on 310 patients with acute ischaemic stroke treated with MT. The mean total cost of providing MT and inpatient care within 24 hours was £10,846 (95% confidence interval (CI) 10,527–11,165) per patient. The main driver of cost was MT procedure costs, accounting for 73% (£7,943; 95% CI 7,649–8,237) of the total 24-hour cost. Costs were higher for patients treated under general anaesthesia (£11,048; standard deviation (SD) 2,654) than for local anaesthesia (£9,978; SD 2,654), mean difference £1,070 (95% CI 381–1,759; p=0.003); admission to an intensive care unit (ICU; £12,212; SD 3,028) against for admission elsewhere (£10,179; SD 2,415), mean difference £2,032 (95% CI 1,345–2,719; p The mean cost within 72 hours was £12,440 (95% CI 10,628–14,252). The total costs for the duration of inpatient care before discharge from a thrombectomy centre was £14,362 (95% CI 13,603–15,122). Conclusions Major factors contributing to costs of MT for stroke include consumables and staff for intervention, use of general anaesthesia and ICU admissions. These findings can inform the reimbursement, provision and strategic planning of stroke services and aid future economic evaluations.

[Background] The prevalence of ex vivo ‘high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR)’ and its relationship with recurrent vascular events/outcomes in patients with ischaemic cerebrovascular disease (CVD) is unclear., [Methods] A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for completed manuscripts until May 2019 on TIA/ischaemic stroke patients, ≥ 18 years, treated with commonly-prescribed antiplatelet therapy, who had platelet function/reactivity testing and prospective follow-up data on recurrent stroke/TIA, myocardial infarction, vascular death or other cerebrovascular outcomes. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcome was the composite risk of recurrent stroke/TIA, myocardial infarction or vascular death. Secondary outcomes were recurrent stroke/TIA, severe stroke (NIHSS > 16) or disability/impairment (modified Rankin scale ≥ 3) during follow-up., [Results] Antiplatelet–HTPR prevalence was 3–65% with aspirin, 8–56% with clopidogrel and 1.8–35% with aspirin–clopidogrel therapy. Twenty studies (4989 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. There was a higher risk of the composite primary outcome (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.90–4.51) and recurrent ischaemic stroke/TIA (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.51–3.91) in patients with vs. those without ‘antiplatelet–HTPR’ on any antiplatelet regimen. These risks were also more than twofold higher in patients with vs. those without ‘aspirin–HTPR’ and ‘dual antiplatelet–HTPR’, respectively. Clopidogrel–HTPR status did not significantly predict outcomes, but the number of eligible studies was small. The risk of severe stroke was higher in those with vs. without antiplatelet–HTPR (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.00–7.01)., [Discussion] Antiplatelet–HTPR may predict risks of recurrent vascular events/outcomes in CVD patients. Given the heterogeneity between studies, further prospective, multi-centre studies are warranted., Dr. Lim’s research was funded by The Meath Foundation, The Irish Institute of Clinical Neuroscience/Novartis Ireland Fellowship Grant, The Vascular Neurology Research Foundation Ireland, the Irish Heart Foundation Stroke Prevention Bursary programme, and by an unrestricted educational grant from Biogen Idec, Ireland. Dr. Murphy’s research was funded by the Trinity College Dublin Innovation Bursary, The Meath Foundation, Joint Irish Institute of Clinical Neuroscience/Merck Serono Fellowship in Neuroscience Grant, The Vascular Neurology Research Foundation Ireland, and by an unrestricted educational grant from Bayer HealthCare, Ireland and Verum Diagnostica, GmbH. Dr Offiah’s Research is funded by The Meath Foundation and The Vascular Neurology Research Foundation Ireland and by an unrestricted educational grant from SINNOWA Medical Science & Technology Co., China. Prof Thijs’ research is supported by The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, which acknowledges support from the Victorian Government and funding from an Operational Infrastructure Support Grant. Prof Prodan’s research is supported by a United States Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Award (1I01CX000340). Prof Kelly is supported by grants from the Health Research Board Ireland. Prof Barber is supported by grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Prof Werring receives research support from the Stroke Association and the British Heart Foundation. Prof Thijs has received personal fees for lectures and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer and Amgen. Prof. Bath is a Stroke Association Professor of Stroke Medicine and NIHR Senior Investigator, a non-executive Director of ‘Platelet Solutions Ltd.®, and owns 3 shares; he has received personal fees for consulting from DiaMedica, Moleac, Nestle, Sanofi and Phagenesis. Prof Werring has received honoraria for consulting and lectures from Bayer and Portola, and for consulting from Alnylam.

BackgroundPre-hospital identification of key subgroups within the suspected stroke population could reduce delays to emergency treatment. We aimed to identify and describe technology with existing proof of concept for diagnosis or stratification of patients in the pre-hospital setting.MethodsA systematic electronic search of published literature (from 01/01/2000 to 06/06/2019) was conducted in five bibliographic databases. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility of studies or study protocols describing diagnostic/stratification tests (portable imaging/biomarkers) or technology facilitating diagnosis/stratification (telemedicine) used by ambulance personnel during the assessment of suspected stroke. Eligible descriptions required use of tests or technology during the actual assessment of suspected stroke to provide information directly to ambulance personnel in the pre-hospital setting. Due to study, intervention and setting heterogeneity there was no attempt at meta-analysis.Results2887 articles were screened for eligibility, 19 of which were retained. Blood biomarker studies (n = 2) were protocols of prospective diagnostic accuracy studies, one examining purines and the other a panel of known and novel biomarkers for identifying stroke sub-types (versus mimic). No data were yet available on diagnostic accuracy or patient health outcomes. Portable imaging studies (n = 2) reported that an infrared screening device for detecting haemorrhages yielded moderate sensitivity and poor specificity in a small study, whilst a dry-EEG study to detect large vessel occlusion in ischaemic stroke has not yet reported results. Fifteen evaluations of pre-hospital telemedicine were identified (12 observational and 3 controlled comparisons) which all involved transmission of stroke assessment data from the pre-hospital setting to the hospital. Diagnosis was generally comparable with hospital diagnosis and most telemedicine systems reduced time-to-treatment; however, it is unknown whether this time saving translated into more favourable clinical outcomes. Telemedicine systems were deemed acceptable by clinicians.ConclusionsPre-hospital technologies to identify clinically important subgroups amongst the suspected stroke population are in development but insufficient evidence precludes recommendations about routine use in the pre-hospital setting. Multi-centre diagnostic accuracy studies and clinical utility trials combining promising technologies are warranted.

Rapid thrombolysis treatment for acute ischemic stroke reduces disability among patients who are carefully selected, but service delivery is challenging.To determine whether an enhanced Paramedic Acute Stroke Treatment Assessment (PASTA) intervention increased hospital thrombolysis rates.This multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial took place between December 2015 and July 2018 in 3 ambulance services and 15 hospitals. Clusters were paramedics based within ambulance stations prerandomized to PASTA or standard care. Patients attended by study paramedics were enrolled after admission if a hospital specialist confirmed a stroke and paramedic assessment started within 4 hours of onset. Allocation to PASTA or standard care reflected the attending paramedic's randomization status.The PASTA intervention included additional prehospital information collection, a structured hospital handover, practical assistance up to 15 minutes after handover, a predeparture care checklist, and clinician feedback. Standard care reflected national guidelines.Primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving thrombolysis. Secondary outcomes included time intervals and day 90 health (with poor status defined as a modified Rankin Score2, to represent dependency or death).A total of 11 478 patients were screened following ambulance transportation; 1391 were eligible and approached, but 177 did not consent. Of 1214 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [13.2] years; 590 women [48.6%]), 500 were assessed by 242 paramedics trained in the PASTA intervention and 714 were assessed by 355 paramedics continuing with standard care. The paramedics trained in the PASTA intervention took a mean of 13.4 (95% CI, 9.4-17.4) minutes longer (P .001) to complete patient care episodes. There was less thrombolysis among the patients in the PASTA group, but this was not significant (PASTA group, 197 of 500 patients [39.4%] vs the standard care group, 319 of 714 patients [44.7%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.61-1.08]; P = .15). Time from a paramedic on scene to thrombolysis was a mean of 8.5 minutes longer in the PASTA group (98.1 [37.6] minutes) vs the standard care group (89.4 [31.1] minutes; P = .01). Poor health outcomes did not differ significantly but occurred less often among patients in the PASTA group (313 of 489 patients [64.0%]) vs the standard care group (461 of 690 patients [66.8%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.60-1.20]; P = .39).An enhanced paramedic assessment did not facilitate thrombolysis delivery. The unexpected combination of thrombolysis and health outcomes suggests possible alternative influences on treatment decisions by the intervention, requiring further evaluation.ISRCTN Registry Identifier: ISRCTN12418919.

Background: In secondary care, the urgency of review for transient ischaemic attack (TIA) has relied upon the use of the ABCD2 score, but this tool is not validated for use by emergency ambulance crews. There is a need to evaluate alternative care pathways for patients who might be eligible for direct referral to TIA clinics without prior conveyance to the emergency department (ED). Aim: The aim of this national survey was to describe current service provision across the UK for pre-hospital emergency care of patients with TIA. Methods: The authors approached all UK Ambulance trusts (n=13) by email, asking them to provide details of TIA patient referral pathways. Findings: Twelve ambulance services responded to the survey and nine reported that they had no current pathway; one had discontinued a pathway because of service reconfiguration; and three were currently using one. All pathways used the ABCD2 tool to screen patients and classified patients as low-risk if the ABCD2 score was 3 or below. Non-conveyance exclusion criteria varied. Although compliance with referral pathways was audited in an initial pilot in one service, no other evaluations of the effectiveness of pathways were reported. Conclusion: A minority of UK ambulance services report introducing referral pathways for low-risk TIA patients, avoiding initial assessment in the ED. Safety, effectiveness and acceptability of such pathways have not been evaluated to date.

Background A discrete choice experiment (DCE) is a method used to elicit participants’ preferences and the relative importance of different attributes and levels within a decision-making process. DCEs have become popular in healthcare; however, approaches to identify the attributes/levels influencing a decision of interest and to selection methods for their inclusion in a DCE are under-reported. Our objectives were: to explore the development process used to select/present attributes/levels from the identified range that may be influential; to describe a systematic and rigorous development process for design of a DCE in the context of thrombolytic therapy for acute stroke; and, to discuss the advantages of our five-stage approach to enhance current guidance for developing DCEs. Methods A five-stage DCE development process was undertaken. Methods employed included literature review, qualitative analysis of interview and ethnographic data, expert panel discussions, a quantitative structured prioritisation (ranking) exercise and pilot testing of the DCE using a ‘think aloud’ approach. Results The five-stage process reported helped to reduce the list of 22 initial patient-related factors to a final set of nine variable factors and six fixed factors for inclusion in a testable DCE using a vignette model of presentation. Conclusions In order for the data and conclusions generated by DCEs to be deemed valid, it is crucial that the methods of design and development are documented and reported. This paper has detailed a rigorous and systematic approach to DCE development which may be useful to researchers seeking to establish methods for reducing and prioritising attributes for inclusion in future DCEs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3305-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Intra-arterial thrombectomy is the gold standard treatment for large artery occlusive stroke. However, the evidence of its benefits is almost entirely based on trials delivered by experienced neurointerventionists working in established teams in neuroscience centres. Those responsible for the design and prospective reconfiguration of services need access to a comprehensive and complementary array of information on which to base their decisions. This will help to ensure the demonstrated effects from trials may be realised in practice and account for regional/local variations in resources and skill-sets. One approach to elucidate the implementation preferences and considerations of key experts is a Delphi survey. In order to support commissioning decisions, we aimed using an electronic Delphi survey to establish consensus on the options for future organisation of thrombectomy services among physicians with clinical experience in managing large artery occlusive stroke. Methods A Delphi survey was developed with 12 options for future organisation of thrombectomy services in England. A purposive sampling strategy established an expert panel of stroke physicians from the British Association of Stroke Physicians (BASP) Clinical Standards and/or Executive Membership that deliver 24/7 intravenous thrombolysis. Options with aggregate scores falling within the lowest quartile were removed from the subsequent Delphi round. Options reaching consensus following the two Delphi rounds were then ranked in a final exercise by both the wider BASP membership and the British Society of Neuroradiologists (BSNR). Results Eleven stroke physicians from BASP completed the initial two Delphi rounds. Three options achieved consensus, with subsequently wider BASP (97%, n = 43) and BSNR members (86%, n = 21) assigning the highest approval rankings in the final exercise for transferring large artery occlusive stroke patients to nearest neuroscience centre for thrombectomy based on local CT/CT Angiography. Conclusions The initial Delphi rounds ensured optimal reduction of options by an expert panel of stroke physicians, while subsequent ranking exercises allowed remaining options to be ranked by a wider group of experts within stroke to reach consensus. The preferred implementation option for thrombectomy is investigating suspected acute stroke patients by CT/CT Angiography and secondary transfer of large artery occlusive stroke patients to the nearest neuroscience (thrombectomy) centre. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2922-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Aim To determine whether focussed radiology training in reporting stroke computed tomography angiography (CTA) improved diagnostic performance of general radiology specialty trainees staffing regional on call rotas. Materials and methods A validated case archive (VCA) consisting of 50 hyperacute stroke CTA cases was developed for a full day course on CTA interpretation. Training days were organised ensuring all local trainees had a chance to attend. The rate of major and minor amendments by neuroradiology consultants were reviewed in 252 on-call radiology trainee reports. Results Before training, radiology trainees had a total discrepancy (reporting error) rate of 37%: 12% major, 25% minor. Following CTA training, the total discrepancy rate was not significantly reduced (34%) but there was a substantial reduction in major discrepancies to 4% (p=0.037; odds ratio = 3.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 10.12). Conclusion An intensive training course based on a hyperacute stroke VCA significantly reduced major discrepancies in stroke CTA interpretation for radiology trainees. The ability of radiology trainees to recognise large vessel occlusions and other significant findings improved.

IntroductionPatients with cerebrovascular disease are at increased risk for cognitive dysfunction. Modification of vascular risk factors, including insulin resistance, could improve poststroke cognitive function.MethodsIn the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial, patients with a recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) were randomised to pioglitazone (target 45 mg daily) or placebo. All patients were insulin resistant based on a Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance score >3.0. For this preplanned analysis of cognitive function, we examined the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) score (maximum score, 100) during follow-up. Patients were tested at baseline and annually for up to 5 years. Longitudinal mixed model methods were used to compare changes in the 3MS over time.ResultsOf the 3876 IRIS participants, 3398 had a 3MS score at baseline and at least once during follow-up and were included in the analysis. Median 3MS score at baseline was 97 (IQR 93–99). The average overall least squared mean 3MS score increased by 0.27 in the pioglitazone group and by 0.29 in the placebo group (mean difference between treatment groups −0.02; 95% CI −0.33 to 0.28, p=0.88).ConclusionsAmong insulin-resistant patients with a recent ischaemic stroke or TIA, pioglitazone did not affect cognitive function, as measured by the 3MS, over 5 years.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00091949; Results.

Background and Purpose— Cerebral edema (CED) is a severe complication of acute ischemic stroke. There is uncertainty regarding the predictors for the development of CED after cerebral infarction. We aimed to determine which baseline clinical and radiological parameters predict development of CED in patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Methods— We used an image-based classification of CED with 3 degrees of severity (less severe CED 1 and most severe CED 3) on postintravenous thrombolysis imaging scans. We extracted data from 42 187 patients recorded in the SITS International Register (Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke) during 2002 to 2011. We did univariate comparisons of baseline data between patients with or without CED. We used backward logistic regression to select a set of predictors for each CED severity. Results— CED was detected in 9579/42 187 patients (22.7%: 12.5% CED 1, 4.9% CED 2, 5.3% CED 3). In patients with CED versus no CED, the baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was higher (17 versus 10; P P P P Conclusions— The most important baseline predictors for early CED are National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, hyperdense artery sign, higher blood glucose, decreased level of consciousness, and signs of infarct at baseline. The findings can be used to improve selection and monitoring of patients for drug or surgical treatment.

Background and Purpose— We conducted a randomized exploratory study to assess safety and the probability of a favorable outcome with adjunctive argatroban, a direct thrombin-inhibitor, administered to recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (r-tPA)–treated ischemic stroke patients. Methods— Patients treated with standard-dose r-tPA, not receiving endovascular therapy, were randomized to receive no argatroban or argatroban (100 μg/kg bolus) followed by infusion of either 1 (low dose) or 3 μg/kg per minute (high dose) for 48 hours. Safety was incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Probability of clinical benefit (modified Rankin Scale score 0–1 at 90 days) was estimated using a conservative Bayesian Poisson model (neutral prior probability centered at relative risk, 1.0 and 95% prior intervals, 0.33–3.0). Results— Ninety patients were randomized: 29 to r-tPA alone, 30 to r-tPA+low-dose argatroban, and 31 to r-tPA+high-dose argatroban. Rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were similar among control, low-dose, and high-dose arms: 3/29 (10%), 4/30 (13%), and 2/31 (7%), respectively. At 90 days, 6 (21%) r-tPA alone, 9 (30%) low-dose, and 10 (32%) high-dose patients were with modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 1. The relative risks (95% credible interval) for modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 1 with low, high, and either low or high dose argatroban were 1.17 (0.57–2.37), 1.27 (0.63–2.53), and 1.34 (0.68–2.76), respectively. The probability that adjunctive argatroban was superior to r-tPA alone was 67%, 74%, and 79% for low, high, and low or high dose, respectively. Conclusions— In patients treated with r-tPA, adjunctive argatroban was not associated with increased risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and provides evidence that a definitive effectiveness trial is indicated. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT01464788.

Summary Background Multipotent adult progenitor cells are a bone marrow-derived, allogeneic, cell therapy product that modulates the immune system, and represents a promising therapy for acute stroke. We aimed to identify the highest, well-tolerated, and safest single dose of multipotent adult progenitor cells, and if they were efficacious as a treatment for stroke recovery. Methods We did a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial of intravenous multipotent adult progenitor cells in 33 centres in the UK and the USA. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence and interactive voice and web response system to assign patients aged 18–83 years with moderately severe acute ischaemic stroke and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 8–20 to treatment with intravenous multipotent adult progenitor cells (400 million or 1200 million cells) or placebo between 24 h and 48 h after symptom onset. Patients were ineligible if there was a change in NIHSS of four or more points during at least a 6 h period between screening and randomisation, had brainstem or lacunar infarct, a substantial comorbid disease, an inability to undergo an MRI scan, or had a history of splenectomy. In group 1, patients were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive 400 million cells or placebo and assessed for safety through 7 days. In group 2, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive 1200 million cells or placebo and assessed for safety through the first 7 days. In group 3, patients were enrolled, randomly assigned, and stratified by baseline NIHSS score to receive 1200 million cells or placebo in a 1:1 ratio within 24–48 h. Patients, investigators, and clinicians were masked to treatment assignment. The primary safety outcome was dose-limiting toxicity effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was global stroke recovery, which combines dichotomised results from the modified Rankin scale, change in NIHSS score from baseline, and Barthel index at day 90. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT) including all patients in groups 2 and 3 who received the investigational agent or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01436487. Findings The study was done between Oct 24, 2011, and Dec 7, 2015. After safety assessments in eight patients in group 1, 129 patients were randomly assigned (67 to receive multipotent adult progenitor cells and 62 to receive placebo) in groups 2 and 3 (1200 million cells). The ITT populations consisted of 65 patients who received multipotent adult progenitor cells and 61 patients who received placebo. There were no dose-limiting toxicity events in either group. There were no infusional or allergic reactions and no difference in treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups (64 [99%] of 65 patients in the multipotent adult progenitor cell group vs 59 [97%] of 61 in the placebo group). There was no difference between the multipotent adult progenitor cell group and placebo groups in global stroke recovery at day 90 (odds ratio 1·08 [95% CI 0·55–2·09], p=0·83). Interpretation Administration of multipotent adult progenitor cells was safe and well tolerated in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Although no significant improvement was observed at 90 days in neurological outcomes with multipotent adult progenitor cells treatment, further clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of the intervention in an earlier time window after stroke ( Funding Athersys Inc.

Background and Purpose— The DIAS-3 trial (Efficacy and Safety Study of Desmoteplase to Treat Acute Ischemic Stroke [phase 3]) did not demonstrate a significant clinical benefit of desmoteplase administered 3 to 9 hours after stroke in patients with major artery occlusion. We present the results of the prematurely terminated DIAS-4 trial together with a post hoc pooled analysis of the concomitant DIAS-3, DIAS-4, and DIAS-J (Japan) trials to better understand the potential risks and benefits of intravenous desmoteplase for the treatment of ischemic stroke in an extended time window. Methods— Ischemic stroke patients with occlusion/high-grade stenosis in major cerebral arteries were randomly assigned to intravenous treatment with desmoteplase (90 μg/kg) or placebo. The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 at day 90. Safety assessments included mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and other serious adverse events. Results— In DIAS-4, 52 of 124 (41.9%) desmoteplase-treated and 46 of 128 (35.9%) placebo-treated patients achieved an mRS score of 0 to 2 (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.79; 2.64; P =0.23) with equal mortality, frequency of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and other serious adverse events in both the treatment arms. In the pooled analysis, mRS score of 0 to 2 was achieved by 184 of 376 (48.9%) desmoteplase-treated versus 171 of 381 (44.9%) placebo-treated patients (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.95; 1.85; P =0.096). Treatment with desmoteplase was safe and increased the recanalization rate (107/217 [49.3%] versus 85/222 [38.3%]; odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.35; P =0.019). Recanalization was associated with favorable outcomes (mRS 0–2) at day 90 in both the treatment arms. Conclusions— Late treatment with intravenous 90 µg/kg desmoteplase is safe, increases arterial recanalization, but does not significantly improve functional outcome at 3 months. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00856661.

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 www.eso-karolinska.org and http://eso-stroke.org) 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.

Background\ud Dopamine is a key modulator of striatal function and learning and might improve motor recovery after stroke. Previous small trials of dopamine agonists after stroke provide equivocal evidence of effectiveness on improving motor recovery. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of co-careldopa plus routine occupational and physical therapy during early rehabilitation after stroke.\ud \ud Methods\ud This double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of co-careldopa versus placebo in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy was done at 51 UK NHS acute inpatient stroke rehabilitation services. We recruited patients with new or recurrent clinically diagnosed ischaemic or haemorrhagic (excluding subarachnoid haemorrhage) stroke 5–42 days before randomisation, who were unable to walk 10 m or more, had a score of less than 7 points on the Rivermead Mobility Index, were expected to need rehabilitation, and were able to access rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. Participants were assigned (1:1) using stratified random blocks to receive 6 weeks of oral co-careldopa or matched placebo in addition to routine NHS physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The initial two doses of co-careldopa were 62·5 mg (50 mg of levodopa and 12·5 mg of carbidopa) and the remaining doses were 125 mg (100 mg of levodopa and 25 mg of carbidopa). Participants were required to take a single oral tablet 45–60 min before physiotherapy or occupational therapy session. The primary outcome was ability to walk independently, defined as a Rivermead Mobility Index score of 7 or more, at 8 weeks. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN99643613.\ud \ud Findings\ud Between May 30, 2011, and March 28, 2014, of 1574 patients found eligible, 593 (mean age 68·5 years) were randomly assigned to either the co-careldopa group (n=308) or to the placebo group (n=285), on an average 18 days after stroke onset. Primary outcome data were available for all 593 patients. We found no evidence that the ability to walk independently improved with co-careldopa (125 [41%] of 308 patients) compared with placebo (127 [45%] of 285 patients; odds ratio 0·78 [95% CI 0·53–1·15]) at 8 weeks. Mortality at 12 months did not differ between the two groups (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]). Serious adverse events were largely similar between groups. Vomiting during therapy sessions, after taking the study drug, was the most frequent adverse event and was more frequent in the co-careldopa group than the placebo group (19 [6·2%] vs 9 [3·2%]).\ud \ud Interpretation\ud Co-careldopa in addition to routine occupational and physical therapy does not seem to improve walking after stroke. Further research might identify subgroups of patients with stroke who could benefit from dopaminergic therapy at different doses or times after stroke with more intensive motor therapy.\ud \ud Funding\ud Medical Research Council.

Importance In the Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke (IRIS) randomized clinical trial, pioglitazone, an insulin-sensitizing agent, reduced the risk for recurrent stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) among patients with insulin resistance. However, insulin resistance is not commonly measured in clinical practice. Objective To analyze the effects of pioglitazone in patients with good adherence as well as intention-to-treat effects of pioglitazone in patients with prediabetes in the IRIS trial. Design, Setting, and Participants The IRIS trial was a randomized multicenter clinical trial in patients with prior stroke or transient ischemic attack as well as insulin resistance but not diabetes. Patients were enrolled from February 2005 to January 2013, and the median follow-up was 4.8 years. The post hoc analyses reported here were performed from June to September 2018. Per American Diabetes Association criteria, prediabetes was defined as having a hemoglobin A1clevel of 5.7% to 6.4% or fasting plasma glucose level of 100 mg/dL to 125 mg/dL (to convert to mmol/L, multiply by 0.0555). Good adherence was defined as taking 80% or more of the protocol dose. Fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, used to define prediabetes, and adherence of 80% or higher, stipulated in the protocol as defining good adherence, were prespecified subgroups in the analysis plan. Interventions Participants were randomized to 15 mg of pioglitazone, with dose titrated to target of 45 mg daily, or matching placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was recurrent stroke or MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke, acute coronary syndrome, stroke/MI/hospitalization for heart failure, and progression to diabetes. Results Among 3876 participants analyzed in the IRIS trial, 2885 were included in this analysis (1456 in the pioglitazone cohort and 1429 in the placebo cohort). The mean (SD) age of patients was 64 (11) years, and 974 (66.9%) and 908 (63.5%) of patients were men in the pioglitazone and placebo cohort, respectively. In the prediabetic population with good adherence (644 of 1456 individuals [44.2%] in the pioglitazone group and 810 of 1429 [56.7%] in the placebo group), the hazard ratios (95% CI) were 0.57 (0.39-0.84) for stroke/MI, 0.64 (0.42-0.99) for stroke, 0.47 (0.26-0.85) for acute coronary syndrome, 0.61 (0.42-0.88) for stroke/MI/hospitalization for heart failure, and 0.18 (0.10-0.33) for progression to diabetes. There was a nonsignificant reduction in overall mortality, cancer, and hospitalization, a slight increase in serious bone fractures, and an increase in weight gain and edema. Intention-to-treat results also showed significant reduction of events but to a lesser degree. Hazard ratios (95% CI) were 0.70 (0.56-0.88) for stroke/MI, 0.72 (0.56-0.92) for stroke, 0.72 (0.52-1.00) for acute coronary syndrome, 0.78 (0.63-0.96), for stroke/MI/hospitalization for heart failure, and 0.46 (0.35 to 0.61) for progression to diabetes. Conclusions and Relevance Pioglitazone may be effective for secondary prevention in patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack and with prediabetes, particularly in those with good adherence. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT00091949

Background The English National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network first established Hyperacute Stroke Research Centres (HSRCs) in 2010 to support multicentre hyperacute (

Pioglitazone reduces insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk among patients with type 2 diabetes. The Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial randomized 3876 non-diabetic participants with recent stroke/TIA and insulin resistance based on the Homeostasis Model of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) score to pioglitazone (PIO) vs. placebo (PLA). Over 4.8 years, the relative risk reduction (RRR) with PIO was 27% for stroke/myocardial infarction, 25% for stroke, 29% for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 52% for new-onset diabetes. PIO could therefore be considered a new therapy for secondary stroke prevention before diabetes onset. However, it is not in widespread use, not only because of increased fracture risk, but perhaps also because HOMA-IR is not commonly assessed in clinical practice. In contrast, the presence of prediabetes is often identified in this population. We therefore analyzed the intention-to-treat (ITT) and the on-treatment effect of PIO (defined as adherence of > 80%) in IRIS participants with prediabetes by the American Diabetes Association criteria: HbA1C 5.7%-6.4%, or fasting glucose 100-125 mg/dL (n=2885; PIO 1456, PLA 1429). By ITT, for pioglitazone the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval in Cox regression for stroke/MI was 0.70 (0.56-0.88, p=0.002), for stroke 0.72 (0.56-0.93, p=0.013), for ACS 0.72 (0.52-1.00, p = 0.052), for stroke/MI/hospitalized heart failure (HHF) 0.78 (0.63-0.96, p=0.02), and for new-onset diabetes HR 0.46 (0.34-0.61, p Conclusion: Pioglitazone should be considered efficacious for secondary prevention in stroke/TIA participants with prediabetes, simply assessed by fasting plasma glucose or A1C.

Background and Purpose- Hyperglycemia is a negative prognostic factor after acute ischemic stroke but is not known whether glucose is associated with the effects of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with large-vessel stroke. In a pooled-data meta-analysis, we analyzed whether serum glucose is a treatment modifier of the efficacy of EVT in acute stroke. Methods- Seven randomized trials compared EVT with standard care between 2010 and 2017 (HERMES Collaboration [highly effective reperfusion using multiple endovascular devices]). One thousand seven hundred and sixty-four patients with large-vessel stroke were allocated to EVT (n=871) or standard care (n=893). Measurements included blood glucose on admission and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale range, 0-6; lower scores indicating less disability) at 3 months. The primary analysis evaluated whether glucose modified the effect of EVT over standard care on functional outcome, using ordinal logistic regression to test the interaction between treatment and glucose level. Results- Median (interquartile range) serum glucose on admission was 120 (104-140) mg/dL (6.6 mmol/L [5.7-7.7] mmol/L). EVT was better than standard care in the overall pooled-data analysis adjusted common odds ratio (acOR), 2.00 (95% CI, 1.69-2.38); however, lower glucose levels were associated with greater effects of EVT over standard care. The interaction was nonlinear such that significant interactions were found in subgroups of patients split at glucoseor90 mg/dL (5.0 mmol/L; P=0.019 for interaction; acOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.73-8.41 for patients90 mg/dL versus 1.83; 95% CI, 1.53-2.19 for patients90 mg/dL), and glucoseor100 mg/dL (5.5 mmol/L; P=0.004 for interaction; acOR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.04-4.93 versus acOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.42-2.08) but not between subgroups above these levels of glucose. Conclusions- EVT improved stroke outcomes compared with standard treatment regardless of glucose levels, but the treatment effects were larger at lower glucose levels, with significant interaction effects persisting up to 90 to 100 mg/dL (5.0-5.5 mmol/L). Whether tight control of glucose improves the efficacy of EVT after large-vessel stroke warrants appropriate testing.

Background Despite evidence from clinical trials that intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is a cost-effective treatment for selected acute ischaemic stroke patients, there remain large variations in the rate of IV thrombolysis delivery between stroke services. This study is evaluating whether an enhanced care pathway delivered by paramedics (the Paramedic Acute Stroke Treatment Assessment (PASTA)) could increase the number of patients who receive IV thrombolysis treatment. Methods Study design: Cluster randomised trial with economic analysis and parallel process evaluation. Setting: National Health Service ambulance services, emergency departments and hyper-acute stroke units within three geographical regions of England and Wales. Randomisation: Ambulance stations within each region are the units of randomisation. According to station allocation, paramedics based at a station deliver the PASTA pathway (intervention) or continue with standard stroke care (control). Study intervention: The PASTA pathway includes structured pre-hospital information collection, prompted pre-notification, structured handover of information in hospital and assistance with simple tasks during the initial hospital assessment. Study-trained intervention group paramedics deliver this pathway to adults within 4 h of suspected stroke onset. Study control: Standard stroke care according to national and local guidelines for the pre-hospital and hospital assessment of suspected stroke. Participants: Participants enrolled in the study are adults with confirmed stroke who were assessed by a study paramedic within 4 h of symptom onset. Primary outcome: Proportion of participants receiving IV thrombolysis. Sample size: 1297 participants provide 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of patients receiving IV thrombolysis. Discussion The results from this trial will determine whether an enhanced care pathway delivered by paramedics can increase thrombolysis delivery rates. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12418919. Registered on 5 November 2015. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3144-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IMPORTANCE Reperfusion is a key factor for clinical outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for large-vessel intracranial occlusion. However, data are scarce on the association between the time from onset and reperfusion results.OBJECTIVE To analyze the rate of reperfusion after EVT started at different intervals after symptom onset in patients with AIS.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 7 randomized trials of the Highly Effective Reperfusion Using Multiple Endovascular Devices (HERMES) group. This is a multicenter cohort study of the intervention arm of randomized clinical trials included in the HERMES group. Patients with anterior circulation AIS who underwent EVT for M1/M2 or intracranial carotid artery occlusion were included. Each trial enrolled patients according to its specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on patients eligible but not enrolled (eg, refusals or exclusions) were not available. All analyses were performed by the HERMES biostatistical core laboratory using the pooled database. Data were analyzed between December 2010 and April 2015.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Successful reperfusion was defined as a modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score of 2b/3 at the end of the EVT procedure adjusted for age, occlusion location, pretreatment intravenous thrombolysis, and clot burden score and was analyzed in relation to different intervals (onset, emergency department arrival, imaging, and puncture) using mixed-methods logistic regression.RESULTS Among the 728 included patients, with a mean (SD) age of 65.4 (13.5) years and of whom 345 were female (47.4%), decreases in rates of successful reperfusion defined as a thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score of 2b/3 were observed with increasing time from admission or first imaging to groin puncture. The magnitude of effect was a 22% relative reduction (odds ratio. 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95) per additional hour between admission and puncture and a 26% relative reduction (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93) per additional hour between imaging and puncture.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Because the probability of reperfusion declined significantly with time between hospital arrival and groin puncture, we provide additional arguments for minimizing the intervals after symptom onset in anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke.

We sought to develop an instrument to screen for insulin resistance in nondiabetic patients with recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).Subjects were 7262 nondiabetic patients aged greater than or equal to 40 years with ischemic strokes or TIA within the past 6 months. Features were analyzed in bivariate analysis for association with insulin resistance, measured by the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Features significantly associated with HOMA-IR (P .05) were entered into multivariable analysis. The magnitudes of regression coefficients from the multivariable model were used to assign point values for 2 diagnostic scoring instruments: a basic instrument that did not incorporate laboratory test values and an enhanced instrument that did. The performance of the instruments was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.In the basic model, 5 features were retained in the multivariable regression analysis: male gender, abdominal obesity, body mass index (BMI), elevated waist-to-hip ratio, and systolic blood pressure. In the enhanced model, 4 features were retained in the multivariable regression analysis: BMI, abdominal obesity, fasting glucose greater than or equal to 100 mg/dL, and triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein ratio. In the basic model, the area under the ROC curve (aROC) was .73 in the validation cohort. In the enhanced model, the aROC was .78 in the validation cohort.Our 2 scoring systems performed well in identifying stroke patients with insulin resistance, but they are probably not sufficiently accurate for high-stake clinical decisions. We suggest strategies for improving the accuracy of future instruments.