SummaryBackgroundAlteplase is effective for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke but debate continues about its use after longer times since stroke onset, in older patients, and among patients who have had the least or most severe strokes. We assessed the role of these factors in affecting good stroke outcome in patients given alteplase.MethodsWe did a pre-specified meta-analysis of individual patient data from 6756 patients in nine randomised trials comparing alteplase with placebo or open control. We included all completed randomised phase 3 trials of intravenous alteplase for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke for which data were available. Retrospective checks confirmed that no eligible trials had been omitted. We defined a good stroke outcome as no significant disability at 3–6 months, defined by a modified Rankin Score of 0 or 1. Additional outcomes included symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (defined by type 2 parenchymal haemorrhage within 7 days and, separately, by the SITS-MOST definition of parenchymal type 2 haemorrhage within 36 h), fatal intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days, and 90-day mortality.FindingsAlteplase increased the odds of a good stroke outcome, with earlier treatment associated with bigger proportional benefit. Treatment within 3·0 h resulted in a good outcome for 259 (32·9%) of 787 patients who received alteplase versus 176 (23·1%) of 762 who received control (OR 1·75, 95% CI 1·35–2·27); delay of greater than 3·0 h, up to 4·5 h, resulted in good outcome for 485 (35·3%) of 1375 versus 432 (30·1%) of 1437 (OR 1·26, 95% CI 1·05–1·51); and delay of more than 4·5 h resulted in good outcome for 401 (32·6%) of 1229 versus 357 (30·6%) of 1166 (OR 1·15, 95% CI 0·95–1·40). Proportional treatment benefits were similar irrespective of age or stroke severity. Alteplase significantly increased the odds of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (type 2 parenchymal haemorrhage definition 231 [6·8%] of 3391 vs 44 [1·3%] of 3365, OR 5·55, 95% CI 4·01–7·70, p<0·0001; SITS-MOST definition 124 [3·7%] vs 19 [0·6%], OR 6·67, 95% CI 4·11–10·84, p<0·0001) and of fatal intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days (91 [2·7%] vs 13 [0·4%]; OR 7·14, 95% CI 3·98–12·79, p<0·0001). The relative increase in fatal intracranial haemorrhage from alteplase was similar irrespective of treatment delay, age, or stroke severity, but the absolute excess risk attributable to alteplase was bigger among patients who had more severe strokes. There was no excess in other early causes of death and no significant effect on later causes of death. Consequently, mortality at 90 days was 608 (17·9%) in the alteplase group versus 556 (16·5%) in the control group (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·99–1·25, p=0·07). Taken together, therefore, despite an average absolute increased risk of early death from intracranial haemorrhage of about 2%, by 3–6 months this risk was offset by an average absolute increase in disability-free survival of about 10% for patients treated within 3·0 h and about 5% for patients treated after 3·0 h, up to 4·5 h.Interpretat...

Background Limited data are available to guide the choice of a target for the systolic blood-pressure level when treating acute hypertensive response in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods We randomly assigned eligible participants with intracerebral hemorrhage (volume, <60 cm3) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 5 or more (on a scale from 3 to 15, with lower scores indicating worse condition) to a systolic blood-pressure target of 110 to 139 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of 140 to 179 mm Hg (standard treatment) in order to test the superiority of intensive reduction of systolic blood pressure to standard reduction; intravenous nicardipine to lower blood pressure was administered within 4.5 hours after symptom onset. The primary outcome was death or disability (modified Rankin scale score of 4 to 6, on a scale ranging from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 3 months after randomization, as ascertained by an investigator who was unaware of the treatment assignments. Results Among 1000 participants with a mean (±SD) systolic blood pressure of 200.6±27.0 mm Hg at baseline, 500 were assigned to intensive treatment and 500 to standard treatment. The mean age of the patients was 61.9 years, and 56.2% were Asian. Enrollment was stopped because of futility after a prespecified interim analysis. The primary outcome of death or disability was observed in 38.7% of the participants (186 of 481) in the intensive-treatment group and in 37.7% (181 of 480) in the standard-treatment group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.27; analysis was adjusted for age, initial GCS score, and presence or absence of intraventricular hemorrhage). Serious adverse events occurring within 72 hours after randomization that were considered by the site investigator to be related to treatment were reported in 1.6% of the patients in the intensive-treatment group and in 1.2% of those in the standard-treatment group. The rate of renal adverse events within 7 days after randomization was significantly higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (9.0% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.002). Conclusions The treatment of participants with intracerebral hemorrhage to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of 110 to 139 mm Hg did not result in a lower rate of death or disability than standard reduction to a target of 140 to 179 mm Hg. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center; ATACH-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01176565.)

The entire archive is fully searchable, and browsing of titles and tables of contents is easy and available to all. Individual subscribers are entitled to free 24-hour access to 50 archive articles per year.Access to content in the archive is available on a per-article basis and is also being provided through many institutional subscriptions.

No abstract

Background and purpose On 11 March 2020, World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 infection a pandemic. The risk of ischemic stroke may be higher in patients with COVID-19 infection similar to those with other respiratory tract infections. We present a comprehensive set of practice implications in a single document for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute ischemic stroke with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods The practice implications were prepared after review of data to reach the consensus among stroke experts from 18 countries. The writers used systematic literature reviews, reference to previously published stroke guidelines, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and when appropriate, formulate practice implications. All members of the writing group had opportunities to comment in writing on the practice implications and approved the final version of this document. Results This document with consensus is divided into 18 sections. A total of 41 conclusions and practice implications have been developed. The document includes practice implications for evaluation of stroke patients with caution for stroke team members to avoid COVID-19 exposure, during clinical evaluation and performance of imaging and laboratory procedures with special considerations of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy in stroke patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. Conclusions These practice implications with consensus based on the currently available evidence aim to guide clinicians caring for adult patients with acute ischemic stroke who are suspected of, or confirmed, with COVID-19 infection. Under certain circumstances, however, only limited evidence is available to support these practice implications, suggesting an urgent need for establishing procedures for the management of stroke patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.