Objective:The objectives of this study were to measure the global impact of the pandemic on the volumes for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods.Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke databases.Results:There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95%CI, -11.7 to - 11.3, p<0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95%CI, -13.8 to -12.7, p<0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95%CI, -13.7 to -10.3, p=0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95%CI 9.2-9.8, p<0.0001) was noted over the two later (May, June) versus the two earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions.Conclusions:The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months.

Variable dose regimens of IV-tPA are used across Asia without any reliable or established evidence. Establishing a uniform IV-tPA regimen is essential since the rapid improvements in health-care facilities and public awareness are expected to increase the rates of thrombolysis in Asia.

Intravenous thrombolysis, particularly in a lower dose, is safe and feasible in the treatment of acute IS in our selected Vietnamese population.

Background and Purpose The benefit regarding co-treatment with intravenous (IV) thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion remains unclear. To test the hypothesis that clinical outcome of ischemic stroke patients with intracranial internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery or basilar artery occlusion treated with direct endovascular thrombectomy within 4.5 hours will be non-inferior compared with that of standard bridging IV thrombolysis followed by endovascular thrombectomy.Methods To randomize 780 patients 1:1 to direct thrombectomy or bridging IV thrombolysis with thrombectomy. An international-multicenter prospective randomized open label blinded endpoint trial (PROBE) (ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03494920).Results Primary endpoint is functional independence defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–2 or return to baseline at 90 days. Secondary end points include ordinal mRS analysis, good angiographic reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score [mTICI] 2b–3), safety endpoints include symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and death.Conclusions DIRECT-SAFE will provide unique information regarding the impact of direct thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion, including patients with basilar artery occlusion, with comparison across different ethnic groups.

BACKGROUND The best management of basilar artery occlusion (BAO) remains uncertain. The BASICS (Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study) and the BEST (Basilar Artery Occlusion Endovascular Intervention Versus Standard Medical Treatment) trials reported neutral results. We sought to understand physicians’ approaches to BAOs and whether further BAO randomized controlled trials were warranted. METHODS We conducted an online international survey from January to March 2022 to stroke neurologists and neurointerventionalists. Survey questions were designed to examine clinical and imaging parameters under which clinicians would offer (or rescind) a patient with BAO to endovascular therapy (EVT) or best medical management versus enrollment into a randomized clinical trial. RESULTS Of >3002 invited participants, 1245 responded (41.4% response rate) from 73 countries, including 54.7% stroke neurologists and 43.6% neurointerventionalists. More than 95% of respondents would offer EVT to patients with BAO, albeit in various clinical circumstances. There were 70.0% of respondents who indicated that the BASICS and BEST trials did not change their practice. Only 22.1% of respondents would perform EVT according to anterior circulation occlusion criteria. The selection of patients for BAO EVT by clinical severity, timing, and imaging modality differed according to geography, specialty, and country income level. Over 80% of respondents agreed that further randomized clinical trials for BAO were warranted. Moreover, 45.6% of respondents indicated they would find it acceptable to enroll all trial‐eligible patients into the medical arm of a BAO trial, whereas 26.3% would not enroll. CONCLUSION Most stroke physicians continue to believe in the efficacy of EVT in selected patients with BAO in spite of BEST and BASICS. There is no consensus on which selection criteria to use, and few clinicians would use anterior circulation occlusion criteria for BAOs. Further randomized clinical trials for BAO are warranted.