Endovascular Treatment Strategies for Acute Ischemic Stroke

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 511-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Ellis ◽  
Brett E. Youngerman ◽  
Randall T. Higashida ◽  
Dorothea Altschul ◽  
Philip M. Meyers
2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenan Alkhalili ◽  
Nohra Chalouhi ◽  
Stavropoula Tjoumakaris ◽  
David Hasan ◽  
Robert M. Starke ◽  
...  

Three recently published trials, MR RESCUE, IMS III, and SYNTHESIS Expansion, evaluating the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke have generated concerns about the future of endovascular approach. However, the tremendous evolution that imaging and endovascular treatment modalities have undergone over the past several years has raised doubts about the validity of these trials. In this paper, we review the role of endovascular treatment strategies in acute ischemic stroke and discuss the limitations and shortcomings that prevent generalization of the findings of recent trials. We also provide our experience in endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke.


2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. S103-S110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary M. Nesbit ◽  
George Luh ◽  
Raymond Tien ◽  
Stanley L. Barnwell

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayank Goyal ◽  
Manon Kappelhof ◽  
Rosalie McDonough ◽  
Johanna Maria Ospel

Medium vessel occlusions (MeVOs, ie, M2, M3, A2, A3, P2, and P3 segment occlusions) are increasingly recognized as a target for endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke. It is important to note that not all MeVOs are equal. Primary MeVOs occur de novo with the underlying mechanisms being very similar to large vessel occlusion strokes. Secondary MeVOs arise from large vessel occlusions through clot migration or fragmentation, either spontaneously or following treatment with intravenous thrombolysis or endovascular treatment. Currently, there are little data on the prevalence, management, and prognosis of acute ischemic stroke due to secondary MeVOs. This type of stroke is, however, likely to become more relevant in the future as indications for endovascular treatment continue to broaden. In this article, we describe different types of secondary MeVOs, imaging findings associated with them, challenges related to the diagnosis of secondary MeVOs, and their potential implications for treatment strategies and clinical outcomes.


Author(s):  
S. Andonova ◽  
E. Kalevska ◽  
Ch. Bachvarov ◽  
Tz. Dimitrova ◽  
M. Petkova ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628642110211
Author(s):  
Georgios Magoufis ◽  
Apostolos Safouris ◽  
Guy Raphaeli ◽  
Odysseas Kargiotis ◽  
Klearchos Psychogios ◽  
...  

Recent randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have revolutionized acute ischemic stroke care by extending the use of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular reperfusion therapies in time windows that have been originally considered futile or even unsafe. Both systemic and endovascular reperfusion therapies have been shown to improve outcome in patients with wake-up strokes or symptom onset beyond 4.5 h for intravenous thrombolysis and beyond 6 h for endovascular treatment; however, they require advanced neuroimaging to select stroke patients safely. Experts have proposed simpler imaging algorithms but high-quality data on safety and efficacy are currently missing. RCTs used diverse imaging and clinical inclusion criteria for patient selection during the dawn of this novel stroke treatment paradigm. After taking into consideration the dismal prognosis of nonrecanalized ischemic stroke patients and the substantial clinical benefit of reperfusion therapies in selected late presenters, we propose rescue reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke patients not fulfilling all clinical and imaging inclusion criteria as an option in a subgroup of patients with clinical and radiological profiles suggesting low risk for complications, notably hemorrhagic transformation as well as local or remote parenchymal hemorrhage. Incorporating new data to treatment algorithms may seem perplexing to stroke physicians, since treatment and imaging capabilities of each stroke center may dictate diverse treatment pathways. This narrative review will summarize current data that will assist clinicians in the selection of those late presenters that will most likely benefit from acute reperfusion therapies. Different treatment algorithms are provided according to available neuroimaging and endovascular treatment capabilities.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Jing ◽  
Hao Li ◽  
Shengming Huang ◽  
Min Guan ◽  
Yongxin Li ◽  
...  

AbstractEndovascular treatment (EVT) has been accepted as the standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients who received EVT within and beyond 6 h from symptom onset to groin puncture without perfusion software in Guangdong district, China. Between March 2017 and May 2018, acute ischemic stroke patients who received EVT from 6 comprehensive stroke centers, were enrolled into the registry study. In this subgroup study, we included all patients who had acute proximal large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. The demographic, clinical and neuroimaging data were collected from each center. A total of 192 patients were included in this subgroup study. They were divided into two groups: group A (n = 125), within 6 h; group B (n = 67), 6–24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture. There were no substantial differences between these two groups in terms of 90 days favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] ≤ 2, P = 0.051) and mortality (P = 0.083), and the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 h (P = 0.425). The NIHSS (median 16, IQR12-20, group A; median 12, IQR8-18, group B; P = 0.009) and ASPECTS (median 10, IQR8-10, group A; median 9, IQR8-10, group B; P = 0.034) at baseline were higher in group A. The anesthesia method (general anesthesia, 21.3%, group A vs. 1.5% group B, P = 0.001) were also statistically different between the two groups. The NIHSS and ASPECTS were higher, and general anesthesia was also more widely used in group A. Clinical outcomes were not significantly different within 6 h versus 6–24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture in this real world study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document