Objective To assess the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) compared with standard intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke. Methods Eligible patients with ischemic stroke, who were devoid of contraindications, started IVT within 3 h or IAT as soon as possible within 6 h. Patients were randomized within 3 h of onset to receive either intravenous alteplase, in accordance with the current European labeling, or up to 0.9 mg/kg intra-arterial alteplase (maximum 90 mg), over 60 min into the thrombus, if necessary with mechanical clot disruption and/or retrieval. The purpose of the study was to determine the proportion of favorable outcome at 90 days. Safety endpoints included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), death and other serious adverse events. Results 54 patients (25 IAT) were enrolled. Median time from stroke onset to start to treatment was 3 h 15 min for IAT and 2 h 35 min for IVT (p,0.001). Almost twice as many patients on IAT as those on IVT survived without residual disability (12/25 vs 8/29; OR 3.2; 95% CI 0.9 to 11.4; p50.067). SICH occurred in 2/25 patients on IAT and in 4/29 on IVT (OR 0.5; CI 0.1 to 3.3; p50.675). Mortality at day 7 was 5/25 (IAT) compared with 4/29 (IVT) (OR 1.6; CI 0.4 to 6.7; p50.718). There was no significant difference in the rate of other serious adverse events. Conclusions Rapid initiation of IAT is a safe and feasible alternative to IVT in acute ischemic stroke. Trial registration number NCT00540527.Although intravenous alteplase administered within 3 h of symptom onset is the only approved medication for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, 1 this approach has known limitations. A major issue is that intravenous alteplase may be ineffective in patients with occlusions of the large arteries, such as the internal carotid artery, 2 3 carotid T segment 4 and the proximal (M1) segment of the middle cerebral artery. Intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) offers some theoretical advantages over intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) 7 : (a) angiographic planning allows customization of treatment strategy; (b) locoregional injection allows a much higher concentration of the drug where needed and the overall dosage administered to the patient is limited to the minimum necessary; (d) mechanical devices may either speed up the recanalization process or make it possible in drug resistant cases.Recanalization rates have been related to improved clinical outcome 8 and there are data suggesting that in patients with large vessel occlusions reperfusion rates with IAT are superior to those obtained with IVT. However, compared with IVT, intra-arterial treatment requires more time consuming and invasive procedures, and expensive techniques that are available only in highly specialized centers with a neurointerventional team. Although previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on IAT provided promising results, 6 9 10 their generalization remains questionable as they were performed in highly selected patients. 11As a result, ...

Recent work has focused on cell transplantation as a therapeutic option following ischemic stroke, based on animal studies showing that cells transplanted to the brain not only survive, but also lead to functional improvement. Neural degeneration after ischemia is not selective but involves different neuronal populations, as well as glial and endothelial cell types. In models of stroke, the principal mechanism by which any improvement has been observed, has been attributed to the release of trophic factors, possibly promoting endogenous repair mechanisms, reducing cell death and stimulating neurogenesis and angiogenesis. Initial human studies indicate that stem cell therapy may be technically feasible in stroke patients, however, issues still need to be addressed for use in human subjects.

Background: Valid and reliable ischemic stroke subtype determination is crucial for well-powered

Single-gene disorders explain only a minority of stroke cases. Stroke represents a complex trait, which is usually assumed to be polygenic. On this topic, the role of a wide number of candidate genes has been investigated in stroke through association studies, with controversial results. Therefore, it is difficult for the clinician to establish the validity and the level of clinical applicability of the previously reported associations between genetic factors and stroke. This review is an update and an extensive analysis of the more recent association studies conducted in stroke. We evaluated a number of studies on several candidate genes (including F5, F2, FGA/FGB/FGG, F7, F13A1, vWF, F12, SERPINE1, ITGB3/PLA1/PLA2/ITGA2B, ITGA2, GP1BA, ACE, AGT, NOS3, APOE, LPL, PON1, PDE4D, ALOX5AP, MTHFR, MTR, and CBS), providing a final panel of genes and molecular variants. We categorized this panel in relation to the degree of association with stroke, supported by the results of meta-analyses and case-control studies. Our findings could represent a useful tool to address further molecular investigations and to realize more detailed meta-analyses.

No abstract

Background and Purpose-Although intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is the standard treatment for patients with ischemic stroke occurring within 3 hours from symptom onset, a few interventional neuroradiologists have been treating this category of patients by an intra-arterial (IA) route for Ͼ25 years. However, evidence is still required to support the clinical feeling that IA treatment, which needs longer time and greater complexity, leads to a better outcome. Therefore, the objective of the present review was to analyze beliefs and myths underlying the selection of patients for IA thrombolysis. Methods and Results-We identified and debunked the following myths on IA thrombolysis: (1) IA thrombolysis works better than IV because it achieves higher recanalization rates; (2) IA thrombolysis works better than IV after the 3-hour window; (3) IA thrombolysis works better than IV in vertebrobasilar stroke; (4) carotid duplex, transcranial doppler, CT angiography, or MRA should be used to screen for major vessel occlusion treatable with IA thrombolysis; (5) to be treated with IA thrombolysis, patients should be selected with diffusion/perfusion MRI; (6) IA thrombolysis should be used as a "rescue" therapy for IV thrombolysis; and (7) the efficacy of IA thrombolysis depends on the thrombolytic agent or the device used. Conclusion-Evidence on acute stroke management with IA thrombolysis is scant. Therefore, neither clinicians nor patients have enough information to make truly informed decisions about the most appropriate treatment. Only randomized controlled trials can clear uncertainties about the possible superiority of IA over IV thrombolysis. Regretfully, case series on IA treatment have limited the organization of such trials and have only favored the spread of myths.

No abstract

The identification of stroke cases caused by monogenic disorders is important both for therapeutic decisions and genetic counselling, although they represent less than 1% of all stroke patients. The purpose of this review is to summarize genetic, pathological, and clinical features of single-gene disorders related to ischemic stroke. The following monogenic disorders are considered: cerebral autosomal-dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy, cerebral autosomal-recessive arteriosclerosis with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy, hereditary endotheliopathy with retinopathy, nephropathy, and stroke, Fabry disease, pseudoxanthoma elasticum, Neurofibromatosis type 1, familial MoyaMoya disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV, Marfan syndrome. For each monogenic disorder, mode of inheritance, pathophysiological aspects, clinical phenotype, and diagnostic tools are carefully described. Furthermore, the classification of monogenetic disorders is presented according to stroke mechanisms, which include small vessel diseases, large artery diseases, and arterial dissections. This review could be useful to identify specific diagnostic pathways for patients with a suspicion of monogenic disease.