Successful IV thrombolysis followed by mechanical thrombectomy in a patient with cerebral ischemia and a dural AV fistula

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Stroke in Patients with Target and Unrelated Vessel AVMs and AVFs: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Advances in acute and long-term poststroke care have resulted in improved survival and functional outcomes for patients who have suffered large vessel ischemic strokes. For years, tissue plasminogen activator was the mainstay of treatment for acute stroke. Its use was previously limited to patients without known comorbid intracranial vascular pathology because of concern for bleeding risk. More recently, however, the use of tissue plasminogen activator in select patients with vascular anomalies has increased and is now largely thought to be safe. With the safety and efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy now proven for large vessel occlusions (LVOs), similar investigation is needed to assess procedural safety in patients with concomitant arteriovenous (AV) malformations or fistulae.

METHODS

We reviewed patients treated for LVOs at our institution and those of our collaborators and identified 6 patients who were treated for LVO with either known or incidentally identified concomitant AV malformations or dural AV fistulae.

RESULTS

We present a case series of 6 patients with nonaneurysmal intracranial vascular lesions who underwent mechanical thrombectomy for LVO without complications related to these lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited by small size, our series adds to the literature evidence that mechanical thrombectomy for LVO can safely be performed with concomitant dural AV fistulae and AV malformations.

Scientific Rationale for the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Purpose—

To critically review and evaluate the science behind individual eligibility criteria (indication/inclusion and contraindications/exclusion criteria) for intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (alteplase) treatment in acute ischemic stroke. This will allow us to better inform stroke providers of quantitative and qualitative risks associated with alteplase administration under selected commonly and uncommonly encountered clinical circumstances and to identify future research priorities concerning these eligibility criteria, which could potentially expand the safe and judicious use of alteplase and improve outcomes after stroke.

Methods—

Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association’s Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writers used systematic literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, morbidity and mortality reports, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence and to indicate gaps in current knowledge and, when appropriate, formulated recommendations using standard American Heart Association criteria. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on and approved the final version of this document. The document underwent extensive American Heart Association internal peer review, Stroke Council Leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee.

Results—

After a review of the current literature, it was clearly evident that the levels of evidence supporting individual exclusion criteria for intravenous alteplase vary widely. Several exclusionary criteria have already undergone extensive scientific study such as the clear benefit of alteplase treatment in elderly stroke patients, those with severe stroke, those with diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia, and those with minor early ischemic changes evident on computed tomography. Some exclusions such as recent intracranial surgery are likely based on common sense and sound judgment and are unlikely to ever be subjected to a randomized, clinical trial to evaluate safety. Most other contraindications or warnings range somewhere in between. However, the differential impact of each exclusion criterion varies not only with the evidence base behind it but also with the frequency of the exclusion within the stroke population, the probability of coexistence of multiple exclusion factors in a single patient, and the variation in practice among treating clinicians.