Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.

Introduction Despite the availability of prevention and therapies of stroke, their implementation in clinical practice, even of low-cost ones, remains poor. In 2015, the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) initiated the ESO Enhancing and Accelerating Stroke Treatment (EAST) program, which aims to improve stroke care quality, primarily in Eastern Europe. Here, we describe its methods and milestones. Patients and methods The ESO EAST program is using an implementation strategy based on a ‘detecting-understanding-reducing disparities’ conceptual framework: stroke care quality is first measured (after developing a platform for data collection), gaps are identified in the current service delivery, and ultimately feedback is provided to participating hospitals, followed by the application of interventions to reduce disparities. The ESO EAST program is carried out by establishing a stroke quality registry, stroke management infrastructure, and creating education and training opportunities for healthcare professionals. Results Program management and leadership infrastructure has been established in 19 countries (Country Representatives in 22 countries, National Steering Committee in 19 countries). A software platform for data collection and analysis: Registry of Stroke Care Quality was developed, and launched in 2016, and has been used to collect data from over 90,000 patients from >750 hospitals and 56 countries between September 2016 and May 2019. Training in thrombolysis, nursing and research skills has been initiated. Discussion ESO EAST is the first pan-Eastern European (and beyond) multifaceted quality improvement intervention putting evidence-informed policies into practice. Continuous monitoring of stroke care quality allows hospital-to-hospital and country-to-country benchmarking and identification of the gaps and needs in health care.

No abstract

Background and Purpose-According to the European license, alteplase can be given no sooner than 3 months after previous stroke. However, it is not known whether past history of stroke influences the effect of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate safety and functional outcome after intravenous thrombolysis administered in everyday practice to patients with previous stroke ≤3 months compared with those with first-ever stroke. Methods-We analyzed consecutive cases treated with alteplase between October 2003 and July 2014 contributed to the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis for Stroke-Eastern Europe registry from 12 countries. Odds ratios were calculated using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression. Results-Of 13 007 patients, 11 221 (86%) had no history of stroke and 249 (2%) experienced previous stroke ≤3 months before admission. Patients with previous stroke ≤3 months had a higher proportion of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. There were no significant differences in outcome, including symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage according to European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (unadjusted odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-2.15), and being alive and independent at 3 months (odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.61-1.09). Conclusions-Patients currently treated with alteplase, despite a history of previous stroke ≤3 months, do not seem to achieve worse outcome than those with first-ever stroke. Although careful patient selection was probably of major importance, our findings provide reassurance that this group of patients may safely benefit from thrombolysis and should not be arbitrarily excluded as a whole. Further studies are needed to identify the shortest safe time lapse from the previous event to treatment with alteplase.

Introduction: The number of patients living with the consequences of stroke is increasing worldwide due to the improving stroke care and the modern differentiated treatment options for ischemic stroke – thrombolysis and thrombectomy. Hence, a significant interest has arisen in quality of life (QOL) measurement in post-stroke patients. Objectives. Measuring QOL in stroke survivors can be achieved by using various generic and stroke specific questionnaires. All tools should assess different domains of health such as physical acting, communication, daily activities and others. This article describes the most commonly used scales for measuring post-stroke QOL. Methods. We searched the PubMed electronic databases with the keywords — Quality of life, Stroke, Measuring for the period from January 2000 to May 2020. Results. Various generic and specific scales for quality of life measuring are available. The advantages of the specific scales include high accuracy and detailed information for the assessed domains. The limitations are due to numerous items, long evaluation time and high dependency on patient’s compliance. The generic scales give the ability to compare the QOL in patients with different diseases. The disadvantage is lack of detailed information for the health status in certain disease or condition. Conclusion. Measuring the different aspects of QOL in post-stroke patients is powerful tool in order to focus the further efforts to the most affected domains. A combination between generic and stroke-specific measure might be considered in order to overcome the limitations. The choice of measuring scales must be balanced in the terms of lengthy and repetitive surveys.

No abstract

Introduction: We assessed best available data on access and delivery of acute stroke unit (SU) care, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular treatment (EVT) in the European region in 2019 and 2020. Patients and methods: We compared national data per number of inhabitants and per 100 annual incident first-ever ischaemic strokes (AIIS) in 46 countries. Population estimates and ischaemic stroke incidence were based on United Nations data and the Global Burden of Disease Report 2019, respectively. Results: The estimated mean number of acute SUs in 2019 was 3.68 (95% CI: 2.90–4.45) per one million inhabitants (MIH) with 7/44 countries having less than one SU per one MIH. The estimated mean annual number of IVTs was 21.03 (95% CI: 15.63–26.43) per 100,000 and 17.14% (95% CI: 12.98–21.30) of the AIIS in 2019, with highest country rates at 79.19 and 52.66%, respectively, and 15 countries delivering less than 10 IVT per 100,000. The estimated mean annual number of EVTs in 2019 was 7.87 (95% CI: 5.96–9.77) per 100,000 and 6.91% (95% CI: 5.15–8.67) of AIIS, with 11 countries delivering less than 1.5 EVT per 100,000. Rates of SUs, IVT and EVT were stable in 2020. There was an increase in mean rates of SUs, IVT and EVT compared to similar data from 2016. Conclusion: Although there was an increase in reperfusion treatment rates in many countries between 2016 and 2019, this was halted in 2020. There are persistent major inequalities in acute stroke treatment in the European region. Tailored strategies directed to the most vulnerable regions should be prioritised.

No abstract