Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for patients with minor ischemic stroke

Effects of intravenous rtPA in patients with minor stroke

BACKGROUND

Whether minor ischemic stroke (MIS) patients can benefit from intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) remains controversial. The association between the efficacy of IVT and baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score is unclear in MIS, while the association in moderate and severe stroke is known. This study aimed to explore the effect of IVT in patients with MIS and analyze its efficacy in patients with different baseline NIHSS scores.

METHODS

Patients with a NIHSS score ≤5 within 4.5 h of stroke onset were screened in 32 centers. Patients with and without IVT were matched to a ratio of 1:1 with propensity scores. An excellent outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤1 at three months after stroke onset. Safety outcomes included mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Multivariate analysis was used to compute the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for excellent outcomes. The effect of IVT was further analyzed in subgroups according to the baseline NIHSS score.

RESULTS

Of the 23,853 screened, 3336 patients with MIS who arrived at the hospital within 4.5 h of onset were included. The 1163 patients treated with IVT were matched with 1163 patients without IVT. IVT in minor strokes generated an adjusted OR of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.09-1.75, p = 0.009) for excellent outcomes. There were no significant differences in mortality (0.17% vs. 0.09%, p = 1.000) and sICH (0.69% vs. 0.86%, p = 0.813) between patients with and without IVT. Subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant effect of IVT in the baseline NIHSS 0-1 or 2-3 subgroups, with adjusted OR of 0.816 (95% CI 0.437-1.53, p = 0.525) and1.22 (95% CI 0.845-1.77, p = 0.287), respectively. In patients with NIHSS score of 4-5, IVT was significantly effective, with an adjusted OR of 1.53 (95% CI 1.02-2.30, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

IVT can improve MIS outcomes. The risks of sICH and mortality did not increase, especially in patients with NIHSS scores 4 to 5, who could benefit from IVT significantly.

Intravenous alteplase in minor nondisabling ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minor ischemic stroke, defined as National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score of 0-5 on admission, represents half of all acute ischemic strokes. The role of intravenous alteplase (IVA) among patients with minor stroke is inconclusive; therefore, we evaluated clinical outcomes of these patients treated with or without IVA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane library until August 1, 2023. Inclusion was restricted to the English literature of studies that reported on minor nondisabling stroke patients treated with or without IVA. Odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% CIs were utilized using a random-effects model. Efficacy outcomes included rates of excellent (modified Rankin scale [mRS] of 0-1) and good (mRS of 0-2) functional outcome at 90 days. The main safety outcome was symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH).

RESULTS

Five eligible studies, two RCTs and three observational studies, comprising 2764 patients (31.8% female) met inclusion criteria. IVA was administered to 1559 (56.4%) patients. Pooled analysis of the two RCTs revealed no difference between the two groups in terms of 90-days excellent functional outcomes (OR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.51-1.13]; I2 = 0%) and sICH rates (OR 3.76 [95% CI, 0.61-23.20]). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of good functional outcomes, 90-day mortality, and 90-day stroke recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of minor nondisabling stroke suggests that IVA did not prove more beneficial compared to no-IVA.

Dual antiplatelet therapy versus intravenous tissue plasminogen activator with acute minor ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) and Intravenous (IV) Tissue Plasminogen Activator (t-PA) in minor Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed observational studies and clinical trials comparing DAPT and IV t-PA in patients with minor AIS. Databases included PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Data extraction included study characteristics, patient demographics, and analyzed outcomes. RevMan 5.3 and OpenMetaAnalyst 2021 were used to analyze the data and assess heterogeneity, respectively. The risk of bias was determined using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included five studies with 3,978 DAPT-treated patients and 2,224 IV t-PA-treated patients. We found no significant differences in achieving modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores of 0-1 (OR 1.11, 95 % CI: 0.79, 1.55, p = 0.56) and 0-2 (OR 0.90, 95 % CI: 0.61, 1.31, p = 0.57), as well as combined mRS scores (OR 1.05, 95 % CI: 0.82, 1.34, p = 0.72). Similarly, there were no significant disparities between the two treatment groups in NIHSS score change from baseline (MD 0.32, 95 % CI: -0.35, 0.98, p = 0.35) and in mortality rates (OR 0.87, 95 % CI: 0.26, 2.93, p = 0.83). Notably, in comparison to the IV t-PA group, the DAPT group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of bleeding (OR 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.14, 0.69, p = 0.004) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.10, 95 % CI: 0.04, 0.26, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis found no significant differences in efficacy between DAPT and IV t-PA. However, DAPT demonstrated a significantly lower risk of sICH and bleeding compared with IV t-PA.

Intravenous thrombolysis versus dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute minor ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and purpose

The efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients with acute minor ischaemic stroke (AMIS) remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IVT and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with AMIS.

Methods

The Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 10 October, 2023. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing the clinical outcomes of IVT and DAPT were included. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for early neurological deterioration (END), excellent and favourable functional outcomes, recurrent ischaemic stroke at 3 months, mortality at 3 months, and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Of the five included studies, 6,340 patients were included. In patients with AMIS, IVT was not significantly associated with excellent and favourable functional outcomes, recurrent ischaemic stroke, or all-cause mortality at 3 months compared to early DAPT. However, a higher risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 9.31; 95% CI, 3.39-25.57) and END (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.76-4.30) were observed with IVT.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicated that IVT was not superior to DAPT in patients with AMIS, especially in those with nondisabling AIS. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution and have some limitations. Further, well-designed randomised controlled trials are warranted.

Intravenous Alteplase Versus Best Medical Therapy for Patients With Minor Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of thrombolysis (IVT) in minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 0-5) remains inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of IVT with best medical therapy (BMT) by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to obtain articles related to IVT in minor stroke from inception until August 10, 2023. The primary outcome was an excellent functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days. The associations were calculated for the overall and preformulated subgroups by using the odds ratios (ORs). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023445856).

RESULTS

A total of 20 high-quality studies, comprised of 13 397 patients with acute minor ischemic stroke, were included. There were no significant differences observed in the modified Rankin Scale scores of 0 to 1 (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.89-1.37]) and 0 to 2 (OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.95-1.43]), mortality rates (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.39-1.15]), recurrent stroke (OR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.57-1.38]), and recurrent ischemic stroke (OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.68-1.73]) between the IVT and BMT group. There were differences between the IVT group and the BMT group in terms of early neurological deterioration (OR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.17-2.80]), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 7.48 [95% CI, 3.55-15.76]), and hemorrhagic transformation (OR, 4.73 [95% CI, 2.40-9.34]). Comparison of modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 1 remained unchanged in subgroup patients with nondisabling deficits or compared with those using antiplatelets.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that IVT does not yield significant improvement in the functional prognosis of patients with acute minor ischemic stroke. Additionally, it is associated with an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage when compared with the BMT. Moreover, IVT may not have superiority over BMT in patients with nondisabling deficits or those using antiplatelets.

The use of alteplase, although safe, does not offer clear clinical advantages when mild stroke is non-disabling

Introduction

It is unknown whether alteplase is effective and safe in patients with mild acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Determining whether symptoms are "disabling" or not is a crucial factor in the management of these patients. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of alteplase in patients with mild, non-disabling AIS.

Methods

We included all consecutive patients admitted for AIS at our institution from January 2015 to May 2022 who presented a baseline NIHSS score of 0-5 and fit the criteria to receive intravenous thrombolysis. In order to select only subjects with non-disabling AIS, we excluded patients who scored more than 1 point in the following NIHSS single items: vision, language, neglect, and single limb. Patients who scored at least 1 point in the NIHSS consciousness item were excluded as well. This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database.

Results

After the application of the exclusion criteria, we included 319 patients, stratified into patients receiving and not receiving alteplase based on non-disabling symptoms. The two groups were comparable regarding demographic and clinical data. Rates of a 3-month favorable outcome, defined as a 3-month mRS score of 0-1, were similar, being 82.3% and 86.1% in the treated and untreated patients, respectively. Hemorrhagic complications and mortality occurred infrequently and were not affected by alteplase treatment.

Discussion

This observational study suggests that the use of alteplase, although safe, is not associated with a better outcome in highly selected patients with non-disabling AIS.

Best medical management versus intravenous thrombolysis for mild non-disabling ischemic stroke: A prospective noninferiority registry study

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis uncertain in patients with non-disabling mild ischemic stroke. Our aim was to investigate whether best medical management only is noninferior to intravenous thrombolysis plus best medical management therapy for achieving favorable functional outcome at 90 days.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective acute ischemic stroke registry from 2018 through 2020, 314 non-disabling mild ischemic stroke patients received best medical management only and 638 underwent intravenous thrombolysis plus best medical management. The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale ≤1 at Day 90. The noninferiority margin was -5%. Secondary outcomes of hemorrhagic transformation, early neurologic deterioration and mortality were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The best medical management only was noninferior to the combined therapy of intravenous thrombolysis and best medical management with regard to the primary outcome (unadjusted risk difference, 1.16%; 95% CI, -3.48% ∼ 5.8%; p = 0.0046 for noninferiority; adjusted risk difference, 3.01%; 95% CI, -3.39% ∼ 9.41%). After propensity score matching, p < 0.0001 for noninferiority. RD, 4.03%; 95% CI, -1.59% ∼ 9.69%. p < 0.0001 for noninferiority. Adjusted RD, 5.23%; 95% CI, -1.88% ∼ 9.97%. The occurrence of hemorrhagic transformation was significantly increased in the group of combination therapy (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.30 to 13.99; p = 0.008), while no significant difference was detected in early neurologic deterioration (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.49-2.52; p = 0.808) and mortality (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.69; p = 0.214) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, we found the best medical management only was noninferior to the combination therapy of intravenous thrombolysis plus best medical management for non-disabling mild ischemic stroke within 4.5 h after onset. Best medical management may be a treatment of choice for non-disabling mild ischemic stroke patients. Further randomized controlled studies are warranted.

Intravenous Thrombolysis is Effective in Mild Stroke Patients with an Admission NIHSS Score of 3 to 5

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The role of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute mild ischemic stroke remains highly controversial. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with mild ischemic stroke based on admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score.

METHODS

The present study enrolled 507 patients with acute mild ischemic stroke admitted within 4.5 hours of symptom onset with an admission NIHSS score of 0 to 5. Patients were assigned to two groups based on admission NIHSS scores of 0 to 2 and 3 to 5, and subsequent analyses compared functional outcomes between thrombotic and non-thrombotic patients within these groups. The primary outcome was a modified Rankin score (mRS) of 0 or 1 at 90 days, representing functional independence. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), early neurological deterioration (END), and the rate of stroke recurrence within 90 days.

RESULTS

Among the 267 patients with NIHSS scores of 0 to 2, 112 (41.9%) patients received intravenous thrombolysis. Overall, thrombolysis administration did not significantly improve the patient's functional prognoses at 90 days (adjusted OR=1.046, 95%CI=0.587-1.863, p = 0.878). However, there was a marked increase in the risk of sICH (p = 0.030). Of the 240 patients with NIHSS scores of 3 to 5, 155 (64.6%) patients received intravenous thrombolysis, resulting in a significant improvement in 90-day functional prognosis (adjusted OR=3.284, 95%CI=1.876- 5.749, p < 0.001) compared to those that did not receive thrombolysis intervention. Importantly, there was no significant increase in sICH incidence (adjusted OR=2.770, 95%CI=0.313-24.51, p = 0.360). There were no statistically significant differences in END or the rate of stroke recurrence within 90 days between thrombotic and non-thrombotic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous thrombolysis is safe and effective in patients with baseline NIHSS scores of 3 to 5. In contrast, it did not improve 90-day functional outcomes in patients with NIHSS scores of 0 to 2 and instead increased the risk of sICH.

Acute Ischemic Stroke With Mild Symptoms-To Thrombolyse or Not to Thrombolyse?

Management of stroke with minor symptoms may represent a therapeutical dilemma as the hemorrhage risk of acute thrombolytic therapy may eventually outweigh the stroke severity. However, around 30% of patients presenting with minor stroke symptoms are ultimately left with disability. The objective of this review is to evaluate the current literature and evidence regarding the management of minor stroke, with a particular emphasis on the role of IV thrombolysis. Definition of minor stroke, pre-hospital recognition of minor stroke and stroke of unknown onset are discussed together with neuroimaging aspects and existing evidence for IV thrombolysis in minor strokes. Though current guidelines advise against the use of thrombolysis in those without clearly disabling symptoms due to a paucity of evidence, advanced imaging techniques may be able to identify those likely to benefit. Further research on this topic is ongoing.

Minor Non-Disabling Stroke Patients with Large Vessel Severe Stenosis or Occlusion Might Benefit from Thrombolysis

Background: The benefit of alteplase in minor non-disabling acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is unknown. We aimed to explore the clinical efficacy of alteplase-treatment in minor non-disabling stroke in clinical practice. Methods: We used a prospectively collected database of AIS patients who were being assessed for thrombolysis with alteplase. Minor non-disabling AIS was identified as patients with baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≤ 5 and a score 0 or 1 on each baseline NIHSS score item (items 1a to 1c being 0). Results: A total of 461 patients with minor non-disabling AIS were included and among them 240 (52.1%) patients were treated with alteplase and 113 (24.5%) patients had severe stenosis/occlusion of large vessels. No significant association of 90-day excellent outcome was found with alteplase-treatment (77.1% vs. 80.5%, p 1 = 0.425; OR 0.911, 95% CI 0.428 to 1.940; p 2 = 0.808). However, among patients with severe stenosis/occlusion of large vessels, alteplase-treatment was independently associated with excellent outcome (74.4% vs. 45.7%, p 1 = 0.005; OR 4.709, 95% CI 1.391 to 11.962; p 2 = 0.010). Conclusion: Although alteplase-treatment did not result in an excellent outcome in general minor non-disabling stroke patients, it may work in those specific patients who had severe stenosis/occlusion of large vessels.

Effect of rt-PA intravenous thrombolysis on the prognosis of patients with minor ischemic stroke

AIMS

The evidence of rt-PA intravenous thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke (MIS) is still controversial. This study aims to investigate the effect of rt-PA intravenous thrombolysis on the prognosis of patients with MIS.

METHODS

We continuously enrolled and analyzed patients with MIS admitted into our hospital within 24 h after symptom onset between January 2016 and December 2018, including 96 patients received intravenous thrombolysis within 4.5 h after symptom onset and 84 patients not received intravenous thrombolysis. A favorable long-term outcome was a 90-day mRS score of 0-1. Good short-term outcome was a 7-day NIHSS score of 0 or less than NIHSS onset.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences between two groups of patients' age, gender, history of hypertension, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, smoking, drinking, and baseline NIHSS score. Patients with history of stroke (22.62% vs. 10.42%, p < 0.05) and diabetes (46.43% vs. 22.92%, p = 0.01) were higher in group of non-thrombolysis. The difference of NIHSS score after 7 days was statistically different between the two groups (p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference in 90-day mRS score. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the prognosis of patients was correlated with neutrophil ratio and CRP at admission.

CONCLUSION

Patients with MIS received intravenous thrombolysis may be associated with earlier neurological improvement, but might has no significant effect on long-term prognosis. The level of neutrophil ratio and CRP at admission are risk factors determining the prognosis, which requires further research.

Comparison of outcome of patients with acute minor ischaemic stroke treated with intravenous t-PA, DAPT or aspirin

Background

Whether to treat minor stroke with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) treatment or antiplatelet therapy is a dilemma. Our study aimed to explore whether intravenous t-PA treatment, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and aspirin have different efficacies on outcomes in patients with minor stroke.

Methods

A post hoc analysis of patients with acute minor stroke treated with intravenous t-PA within 4.5 hours from a nationwide multicentric electronic medical record and patients with acute minor stroke treated with DAPT and aspirin from the Clopidogrel with Aspirin in Acute Minor Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Database. Minor stroke was defined by a score of 0–3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at randomisation. Favourable functional outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–1 or 0–2 at 3 months).

Results

Compared with those treated with intravenous t-PA, no significant association with 3-month favourable functional outcome (defined as mRS score of 0–1) was found neither in patients treated with aspirin (87.8% vs 89.4%; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.50; p=0.53) nor those treated with DAPT (87.4% vs 89.4%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.52; p=0.56). Similar results were observed for the favourable functional outcome defined as mRS score of 0–2 at 3 months.

Conclusions

In our study, no significant advantage of intravenous t-PA over DAPT or aspirin was found. Due to insufficient sample size, our study is probably unable to draw such a conclusion that that intravenous t-PA was superior or non-superior to DAPT.

To Treat or Not to Treat: Importance of Functional Dependence in Deciding Intravenous Thrombolysis of "Mild Stroke" Patients

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients with a low National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 0–5 remains controversial. IVT should be used in patients with mild but nevertheless disabling symptoms. We hypothesize that response to IVT of patients with “mild stroke” may depend on their level of functional dependence (FD) at hospital admission. The aims of our study were to investigate the effect of IVT and to explore the role of FD in influencing the response to IVT. This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, including 389 patients stratified into patients receiving IVT (IVT⁺) and not receiving IVT (IVT ⁻) just because of mild symptoms. Barthel index (BI) at admission was used to assess FD, dividing subjects with BI score < 80 (FD⁺) and with BI score ≥ 80 (FD⁻). The efficacy endpoints were the rate of positive disability outcome (DO⁺) (3-month mRS score of 0 or 1), and the rate of positive functional outcome (FO⁺) (mRS score of zero or one, plus BI score of 95 or 100 at 3 months). At the multivariate analysis, IVT treatment was an independent predictor of DO⁺ (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.34−7.27, p = 0.008) and FO⁺ (OR: 4.70, 95% CI 2.38−9.26, p = 0.001). However, FD⁺ IVT⁺ patients had a significantly higher prevalence of DO⁺ and FO⁺ than those FD⁺ IVT^–. Differently, IVT treatment did not influence DO⁺ and FO⁺ in FD^– patients. In FD⁺ patients, IVT treatment represented the strongest independent predictor of DO⁺ (OR 6.01, 95% CI 2.59–13.92, p = 0.001) and FO⁺ (OR 4.73, 95% CI 2.29–9.76, p = 0.001). In conclusion, alteplase seems to improve functional outcome in patients with “mild stroke”. However, in our experience, this beneficial effect is strongly influenced by FD at admission.

Reperfusion therapy for minor stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Approximately, half of the acute stroke patients with minor symptoms were excluded from thrombolysis in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs). There is little evidence on treating minor strokes with rt-PA. Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in these patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched in July 2018. All available RCTs and retrospective comparative studies that compared thrombolysis with nonthrombolysis' for acute minor stroke (NIHSS ≤ 5) with quantitative outcomes were included.

RESULTS

Ten studies, including a total of 4,333 patients, were identified. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was higher in the rt-PA group as compared with that in the non-rt-PA group (3.8% vs. 0.6%; p = .0001). However, there is no significant difference in the rate of mortality between the two groups (p = .96). The pooled rate of a good outcome in 90 days was 67.8% in those with rt-PA and 63.3% in those without rt-PA (p = .07). Heterogeneity was 43% between the studies (p = .08). After adjusting for the heterogeneity, thrombolysis was associated with good outcome (68.3% vs. 63.0%, OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.14-1.89; p = .003). In post hoc analyses, including only RCTs, the pooled rate of good outcome had no significant differences between the two groups (86.6% vs. 85.7%, 95% CI 0.44-3.17, p = .74; 87.4% vs. 91.9%, 95% CI 0.35-1.41, p = .32; before and after adjusting separately).

CONCLUSIONS

Although thrombolysis might increase the risk of ICH based on existing studies, patients with acute minor ischemic stroke could still benefit from thrombolysis at 3 months from the onset.

Impact of intravenous thrombolysis on functional outcome in patients with mild ischemic stroke without large vessel occlusion or rapidly improving symptoms

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment strategy in patients with mild ischemic stroke remains uncertain. While functional dependency or death has been reported in up to one-third of non-thrombolyzed mild ischemic stroke patients, intravenous thrombolysis is currently not recommended in this patient group. Emerging evidence suggests two risk factors-rapid early improvement and large vessel occlusion-as main associates of unfavorable outcome in mild ischemic stroke patients not undergoing intravenous thrombolysis.

AIMS

To analyze natural course as well as safety and three-month outcome of intravenous thrombolysis in mild ischemic stroke without rapid early improvement or large vessel occlusion.

METHODS

Mild ischemic stroke was defined by a National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score ≤6. We used the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) to compare three-month functional outcome in 370 consecutive mild ischemic stroke patients without early rapid improvement and without large vessel occlusion, who either underwent intravenous thrombolysis (n = 108) or received best medical treatment (n = 262).

RESULTS

Favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 1) was common in both groups (intravenous thrombolysis: 91%; no intravenous thrombolysis: 90%). Although intravenous thrombolysis use was independently associated with a higher risk of asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformation (OR = 4.62, p = 0.002), intravenous thrombolysis appeared as an independent predictor of mRS = 0 at three months (OR = 3.33, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mild ischemic stroke patients without rapidly improving symptoms and without large vessel occlusion have a high chance of favorable three-month outcome, irrespective of treatment type. Patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis, however, more often achieved complete remission of symptoms, which particularly in mild ischemic stroke may constitute a meaningful endpoint.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in mild ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis

The benefits and safety of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) for patients with mild ischaemic stroke (MIS) are still unclear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IV-tPA as treatment for patients with MIS. We performed a systematic literature search across MEDLINE, Embase, Central, Global Health and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from inception to 10 November 2016, to identify all related studies. Where possible, data were pooled for meta-analysis with odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using the fixed-effects model. MIS was defined as having National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤6. We included seven studies with a total of 1591 patients based on the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated a high odds of excellent functional outcome based on the modified Rankin Scale or Oxfordshire Handicap Score 0–1 (OR=1.43; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.79; P=0.002, I²=35%) in patients treated with IV-tPA compared with those not treated with IV-tPA (74.8% vs 67.6%). There was a high risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) with IV-tPA treatment (OR=10.13; 95% CI 1.93 to 53.02; P=0.006, I²=0%) (1.9% vs 0.0%) but not mortality (OR=0.78; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.43; P=0.43, I²=0%) (2.4% vs 2.9%). Treatment with IV-tPA was associated with better functional outcome but not mortality among patients with MIS, although there was an increased risk of sICH. Randomised trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

A Retrospective Study of thrombolysis with 0.6 mg/kg Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator (rt-PA) in Mild Stroke

We sought to assess the safety, effectiveness and cost of 0.6 mg/kg rt-PA treatment for patients with acute mild stroke and to compare that with 0.9 mg/kg. We retrospectively analyzed consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients who had a NIHSS score ≤5 at admission and who were treated with rt-PA within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. The demographic data, clinical outcomes and hospitalization cost were analyzed. A total of 108 patients were included. Forty six patients (42.6%) received a 0.6 mg/kg dosage of rt-PA. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were well matched (p > 0.05). Regarding the safety and effectiveness, the 0.6 mg/kg dosage group had a comparable proportion of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (0.6 mg/kg, 4.3% vs 0.9 mg/kg, 4.8%; p > 0.05), early neurological deterioration (END) (19.6% vs 17.7%; p > 0.05), in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 1.6%; p > 0.05), and a similar rate of favorable functional outcome (mRS score 0–1) at 3 months (73.9% vs 71.0%; p > 0.05) to those who received the standard dosage. However, the hospital cost was markedly lower in the 0.6 mg/kg group (0.6  mg/kg, 3,401.7 USD vs 0.9  mg/kg, 4,157.4 USD; p < 0.01). Our study suggest that 0.6 mg/kg rt-PA shared similar effectiveness and safety profile compared with that of 0.9 mg/kg in treating mild stroke, but cost less.

Minor Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: Research and Practice

A majority of patients with ischemic stroke present with mild deficits for which aggressive management is not often pursued. Comprehensive work-up and appropriate intervention for minor strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) point toward better patient outcomes, lower costs, and fewer cases of disability. Imaging is a key modality to guide treatment and predict stroke recurrence. Patients with large vessel occlusions have been found to suffer worse outcomes and could benefit from intervention. Whether intravenous thrombolytic therapy decreases disability in minor stroke patients and whether acute endovascular intervention improves functional outcomes in patients with minor stroke and known large vessel occlusion remain controversial. Studies are ongoing to determine ideal antiplatelet therapy for stroke and TIA, while ongoing statin therapy, surgical management for patients with carotid stenosis, and anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation have all been proven to decrease the rate of stroke recurrence and improve outcomes. This review summarizes the current evidence and discusses the standard of care for patients with minor stroke and TIA.

Distinct Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Mild Versus Rapidly Improving Stroke Not Treated With Thrombolytics

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Mild stroke (MS) and rapidly improving stroke (RIS) symptoms are common stroke presentations. Our objective is to describe the short-term outcomes in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with ischemic stroke in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry who arrived ≤4.5 hours from symptom onset not treated with thrombolytics because of MS and RIS. Outcomes included in-hospital death, home discharge, independent ambulation at discharge, and length of stay; these were analyzed for the categories of MS, RIS, and MS+RIS. Multivariable models evaluated the associations of individual and hospital covariates with outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 42 394 patients with MS and RIS not treated with thrombolytics, 27% were not discharged directly home, 27.2% did not ambulate independently, and 61.1% had length of stay ≥3 days, despite a low in-hospital mortality of 0.8%. Adjusted outcomes were better for MS+RIS compared with MS; RIS also had better independent ambulation and home discharge compared with MS. Among those with a documented National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, 25% of those with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 0 to 5 and half of those with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale >5 could not be discharged directly to home or ambulate independently. Older individuals, women, blacks, transport by ambulance, delayed arrival, greater severity and greater burden of vascular risk factors, except for dyslipidemia, had worse adjusted outcomes for home discharge and independent ambulation.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of patients with MS and RIS not treated with thrombolytics have suboptimal discharge outcomes. We found significant differences between MS, RIS, and MS+RIS and identified factors associated with worse outcomes.

Thrombolysis for mild stroke

The term “mild stroke”, or “minor stroke” refers to the acute ischemic stroke patients with mild and nondisabling symptoms. Currently there is still no unanimous consensus on the exact definition of mild stroke. Patients with mild stroke are assumed to have a good prognosis in natural course, so they are routinely not given thrombolysis despite early emergency department arrival. Recent studies have revealed that, however, approximately one third of so-called mild stroke patients who are not treated with thrombolysis have significant disability whereas those treated are more likely to achieve a good recovery. Thus excluding all mild strokes from thrombolysis is probably not justified. Those mild stroke patients who are likely to experience early deterioration or end with disability are mostly characterized by imaging findings. Therefore, selected patients with these characteristics based on neuroimaging to be given thrombolysis might be more justified. Meanwhile, new definition should be developed to exclude those who are at a higher risk of poor outcome. Applying information from imaging may make it come true. Using neuroimaging information to define mild stroke and select patients with mild symptoms to thrombolysis may be a future direction.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Mild Symptoms: An Opportunity to Standardize Intravenous Thrombolysis

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting with mild stroke symptoms are excluded inconsistently from intravenous (IV) thrombolysis. We aimed to compare acute magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with mild symptoms to those with more severe deficits to identify clinically mild patients who might benefit from IV thrombolysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied consecutive stroke patients presenting with perfusion deficit who underwent time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography within 24 hours of time last seen normal. Two raters measured the lesion volumes on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) with mismatch (MM) calculated as PWI minus DWI. Occlusion site was categorized as "proximal," "distal," or "magnetic resonance angiography-negative" by consensus review. Stroke with mild symptoms was defined as admit National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 4 or less. Values were reported as n (%).

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were included; 56 (61.5%) with nonmild and 35 (38.5%) with mild symptoms. After stratifying for occlusion site, there were no differences in PWI and MM lesion volumes for the nonmild versus mild patients (P = .34-.98 and P = .54-1, respectively). Furthermore, there was a trend for thrombolyzed mild stroke patients (88%, n = 7 of 8) to more likely have a favorable clinical outcome (discharge modified Rankin score ≤ 2) versus untreated patients (70%, n = 16 of 23).

CONCLUSIONS

When present, conspicuous vessel occlusions in clinically mild stroke patients are concomitant with similar perfusion deficit and MM volumes in more clinically severe stroke patients. Coupled with a trend toward better outcomes in mild stroke patients who were treated with IV tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA), this could indicate that advanced imaging may be used in standardizing the way these patients are selected for IV t-PA therapy.

Defining minor symptoms in acute ischemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Thrombolysis is often withheld from acute ischemic stroke patients presenting with mild symptoms; however, up to 40% of these patients end up with a poor outcome when left untreated. Since there is lack of consensus on the definition of minor symptoms, we aimed at addressing this issue by looking for features that would better predict functional outcomes at 3 months.

METHODS

Among all acute ischemic stroke patients admitted to our Stroke Unit (n = 1,229), we selected a cohort of patients who arrived within 24 hours from symptoms onset, with baseline NIHSS ≤6, not treated with thrombolysis (n = 304). Epidemiological data, comorbidities, radiological features and clinical presentation (NIHSS items) were collected to identify predictors of outcome. Our cohort was tested against minor stroke definitions selected from the literature and a newly proposed one.

RESULTS

Three months after stroke onset, 97 patients (31.9%) had mRS ≥ 2. Independent predictors of poor outcome were age (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-9.99]) and baseline NIHSS score (OR 0.79 [95% CI 0.67-0.94]), while cardioembolic aetiology was negatively associated (OR 3.29 [95% CI 1.51-7.14]). Items of NIHSS associated with poor outcome were impairment of right motor arm (OR 0.49 [95% CI 0.27-0.91]) or the involvement of any of the motor items (OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.48-0.99]). The definition of minor stroke as NIHSS ≤3 and the new proposed definition had the highest sensitivity and accuracy and were independent predictors of outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed that in spite of a low NIHSS score, one third of patients had poor outcome. As already described, age and NIHSS score remained independent predictors of poor outcome even in mild stroke. Also, motor impairment appeared a major determinant of poor outcome. The new proposed definition of minor stroke featured the NIHSS score and the NIHSS items that better predicted functional outcome. Awareness that even minor stroke can yield to poor outcome should sensitize patients to arrive early to the ED and neurologists to administer rt-PA.

Should Minor Stroke Patients Be Thrombolyzed? A Focused Review and Future Directions

Stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Up to 80% of ischemic stroke patients may initially present with minor symptoms. Minor stroke and transient ischemic attack patients are typically treated conservatively with antiplatelet agents and general vascular prevention strategies. Yet a high proportion develop recurrent stroke or progression of stroke and up to one in four of these patients are disabled or dead at follow-up. Minor or rapidly improving symptoms are the top reasons for withholding thrombolytic therapy to time-eligible stroke patients as they are believed to be ‘too good to treat’. The benefits and risks of treating mild ischemic strokes are still unclear. The increasing use of computed tomography angiography and its ability to identify both proximal and distal intracranial occlusions may change this equation. In this review, we discuss the diagnosis and prognosis of mild strokes, the role of neurovascular imaging in treatment decision making, experience with thrombolysis in this patient population, and propose directions for future studies.

Safety and outcome of thrombolysis in mild stroke: a meta-analysis

Background

Whether patients presenting with mild stroke should or should not be treated with intravenous rtPA is still controversial. This systematic review aims to assess the safety and outcome of thrombolysis in these patients.

Material/Methods

We systematically searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies evaluating intravenous rtPA in patients with mild or rapidly improving symptoms except case reports. Excellent outcome (author reported, mainly mRS 0-1), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and mortality were analyzed.

Results

Fourteen studies were included (n=1906 patients). Of these, 4 studies were comparative (2 randomized and 2 non-randomized). The remaining were single-arm studies. On the basis of 4 comparative studies with a total of 1006 patients, the meta-analysis did not identify a significant difference in the odds of excellent outcome (OR=0.86; 95% CI: 0.64–1.15; I²=0) between IV rtPA-treated minor stroke and those without rtPA treatment. Eleven studies involving 1083 patients showed the pooled rate of excellent outcome was 76.1% (95% CI: 69.8–81.5%, I²=42.5). Seven studies involving 378 patients showed the mortality rate was 4.5% (95% CI: 2.6–7.5%, I²=1.4). Twelve studies involving 831 patients showed the pooled rate of sICH was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.5–3.8, I²=0).

Conclusions

Although efficacy is not clearly established, this study reveals the adverse event rates related to thrombolysis are low in mild stroke. Intravenous rtPA should be considered in these patients until more RCT evidence is available.

Treatment of cerebral infarction at the stroke unit in Bodø 2011-12

BACKGROUND

The regional health enterprises wish to increase the proportion of cerebral infarction patients who receive intravenous thrombolytic therapy. We have identified the reasons why only very few patients received such treatment during 2011-12. We also wished to assess the benefits of ECG telemetry in the examination of the patients.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

With permission from the enterprise's own data protection officer, we analysed data for all patients discharged from the stroke unit at the Department of Neurology, Nordland Hospital, after a cerebral infarction (diagnostic code I63) in the period from 1 January 2011 to 30 April 2012.

RESULTS

Of a total of 180 patients admitted directly to the stroke unit, only 12 (6.7%) received intravenous thrombolytic therapy. The main reasons why such treatment was not provided include late arrival at the hospital (n = 91: 50%) and an unknown time of symptom onset (n = 60: 33%). ECG telemetry detected atrial fibrillation in 27 of the 112 patients examined (24%), which meant that anticoagulation treatment was provided to 22 patients who otherwise would have received platelet inhibitors.

INTERPRETATION

Half of all patients with cerebral infarction arrived in the hospital too late for provision of intravenous thrombolytic therapy, and in one-third the time of onset could not be determined. In many patients, ECG telemetry led to changes in the choice of secondary prophylaxis.