Our SEDAN score reliably assessed risk for sICH in IV thrombolysis-treated patients with anterior- and posterior circulation ischemic stroke, and it can support clinical decision making in high-risk patients. External validation of the score supports its generalization.

Background and Purpose-Numerous contraindications included in the license of alteplase, most of which are not based on scientific evidence, restrict the portion of patients with acute ischemic stroke eligible for treatment with alteplase. We studied whether off-label thrombolysis was associated with poorer outcome or increased rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage compared with on-label use. Methods-All consecutive patients with stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis from 1995 to 2008 at the Helsinki University Central Hospital were registered (nϭ1104). After excluding basilar artery occlusions (nϭ119), the study population included 985 patients. Clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0 to 2 versus 3 to 6) and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage according to 3 earlier published criteria were analyzed with a logistic regression model adjusting for 21 baseline variables. Results-One or more license contraindications to thrombolysis was present in 51% of our patients (nϭ499). The most common of these were age Ͼ80 years (nϭ159), mild stroke National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score Ͻ5 (nϭ129), use of intravenous antihypertensives prior to treatment (nϭ112), symptom-to-needle time Ͼ3 hours (nϭ95), blood pressure Ͼ185/110 mm Hg (nϭ47), and oral anticoagulation (nϭ39). Age Ͼ80 years was the only contraindication independently associated with poor outcome (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.73) in the multivariate model. None of the contraindications were associated with an increased risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Conclusions-Off-license thrombolysis was not associated with poorer clinical outcome, except for age Ͼ80 years, nor with increased rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. The current extensive list of contraindications should be re-evaluated when data from ongoing randomized trials and observational studies become available. (Stroke.

SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Higher neutrophil counts and NLR are independently associated with sICH and worse outcome at 3 months. The identification of mediators of this effect could provide new targets for neuroprotection in patients treated by rtPA.