Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke in patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysms

Systemic thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the safety of IV thrombolysis (IVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients harboring unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) in a multicenter study and a comprehensive meta-analysis of available case series.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from consecutive AIS patients treated with IVT during a 4-year period at 4 tertiary-care stroke centers. All patients routinely underwent CT or magnetic resonance angiography during hospitalization. The presence of UIA was documented on the basis of neuroradiology reports. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) was defined as imaging evidence of ICH combined with an increase in NIH Stroke Scale score of ≥4 points. A systematic meta-analysis of case series reporting safety of IVT in AIS with concomitant UIA was conducted according to PRISMA recommendations.

RESULTS

Among 1,398 AIS patients treated with IVT, we identified 42 cases (3.0%) harboring a total of 48 UIAs. The rates of symptomatic and asymptomatic ICH were 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] by adjusted Wald method: 0%-12.6%) and 7.1% (95% CI: 1.8%-19.7%), respectively. A total of 5 case series met our inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, and the pooled rate of sICH among 120 IVT-treated AIS patients harboring UIA was 6.7% (95% CI: 3.1%-13.7%). In the overall analysis of 5 case-series studies, the risk ratio of sICH did not differ between AIS patients with and without UIA (risk ratio = 1.60; 95% CI: 0.54-4.77; p = 0.40) with no evidence of heterogeneity across included studies (I(2) = 22% and p = 0.27 for Cochran Q test).

CONCLUSIONS

Our prospectively collected multicenter data, coupled with the findings of the meta-analysis, indicate the potential safety of IVT in AIS patients with UIA.

Is acute reperfusion therapy safe in acute ischemic stroke patients who harbor unruptured intracranial aneurysm?

Background

Intracranial aneurysms are currently considered as contraindication for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke, very likely due to a possible increase in the risk of bleeding from aneurysm rupture; however, there is limited data available on whether intravenous thrombolysis is safe for acute ischemic stroke patients with pre-existing intracranial aneurysms.

Aims and/or hypothesis

To find out the safety of intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients who harbor unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and cerebrovascular images of all the patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke in our center from the beginning of 2006 till the end of April 2014. Those with unruptured intracranial aneurysm present on cerebrovascular images prior to acute reperfusion therapy were identified. Post-thrombolysis brain imaging was reviewed to evaluate for any intraparenchymal or subarachnoid hemorrhage related or unrelated to the aneurysm.

Results

A total of 637 patients received intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke in our center during an 8.3-year period. Thirty-three (5.2%) were found to have at least one intracranial aneurysms. Twenty-three (70%) of those received only intravenous thrombolysis, and 10 patients received combination of intravenous and intra-arterial throm-bolysis. The size of the largest aneurysm was 10 mm in maximum diameter (range: 2-10 mm). The mean size of aneurysms was 4.8 mm. No symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred among the 23 patients receiving only intravenous thrombolysis. Out of those who received a combination of intravenous and intra-arterial thrombolysis, one developed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the location of acute infarct, distant to the aneurysm location.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that neither intravenous thrombolysis nor combination of intravenous and intra-arterial thrombolysis increases the risk of aneurysmal hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke patients who harbor unruptured intracranial aneurysms less than 10 mm in diameter. Their listing in exclusion criteria for intravenous throm-bolysis should be reconsidered to assure appropriate use of acute reperfusion therapy in this group of patients.

Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Detected after Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Stroke

Therapeutic guidelines of intravenous thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for hyperacute ischemic stroke are very strict. Because of potential higher risk of bleeding complications, the presence of unruptured cerebral aneurysm is a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis with tPA. According to the standard CT criteria, a 66-year-old woman who suddenly developed aphasia and hemiparesis received intravenous tPA within 3 h after ischemic stroke. Magnetic resonance angiography during tPA infusion was performed and the presence of a small unruptured cerebral aneurysm was suspected at the anterior communicating artery. Delayed cerebral angiography confirmed an aneurysm with a size of 7 mm. The patient did not experience any adverse complications associated with the aneurysm. Clinical experiences of this kind of accidental off-label thrombolysis may contribute to modify the current rigid tPA guidelines for stroke.

Hemorrhagic Complications After Off-Label Thrombolysis for Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Only 2% to 4% of patients with acute ischemic stroke receive thrombolytic therapy resulting from the current strict inclusion criteria among other issues. Safety of intravenous and intraarterial thrombolysis in off-label situations is controversially discussed. We sought to review the reports on such patients regarding intra- and extracranial hemorrhage.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

A MEDLINE search for off-label uses of thrombolysis revealed reports on 273 patients treated with intraarterial or intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic stroke. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 19 of 273 patients (6.95%) and extracranial hemorrhage in 17 of 273 (6.22%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the overall bleeding risk in off-label thrombolysis may not be as high as presumed. However, the small number of patients in each group and the likely underreporting of worse outcomes preclude drawing any conclusion as to specific treatment recommendations. Selected patients might benefit, however, from thrombolysis in situations not currently considered in the inclusion criteria. To obtain a meaningful database, a registry for off-label thrombolysis should be created.