Background and Purpose: Management of carotid stenosis remains controversial despite several trials evaluating carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). We compared attitudes in the management of carotid stenosis between selected experts within Europe and North America. Methods: A 3-phase Delphi survey was e-mailed to select stroke experts from Europe (n = 390) and North America (n = 289). Those completing the initial survey were shown all responses after each survey round. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Results: For phases 1, 2, and 3, response rates were 32%, 62%, and 73%, respectively. Overall, 100 (15%) of 679 participated in all 3 phases, 19% Europeans versus 9% North Americans ( P = .0007). The European group reached consensus in 6 of 15 statements; The North American group reached consensus in 4 of 15. Ninety percentage of Europeans versus 70% of North Americans ( P = .017) stated CEA is superior to CAS for symptomatic carotid stenosis. This difference was not significant in the final model (adjusted odds ratio: 3.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.95-14.5]). Sixty-nine percentage of North Americans agreed there is a stronger indication for CAS over CEA in patients younger than 65 years for symptomatic carotid stenosis, whereas 55% of Europeans ( P = .023) disagreed. For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, when asked how likely they would recommend CAS, 62% North Americans said “sometimes” versus 60% of Europeans said “never” ( P = .06). Conclusion: The majority of North American and European respondents did not consider the 2 procedures equivalent and seemed to indicate that CEA was preferred for the management of carotid stenosis. These findings need to be further explored to help establish evidence-based guidelines.
Effects of alteplase for acute stroke according to criteria defining the European Union and United States marketing authorizations: Individual-patient-data meta-analysis of randomized trials
Background The recommended maximum age and time window for intravenous alteplase treatment of acute ischemic stroke differs between the Europe Union and United States. Aims We compared the effects of alteplase in cohorts defined by the current Europe Union or United States marketing approval labels, and by hypothetical revisions of the labels that would remove the Europe Union upper age limit or extend the United States treatment time window to 4.5 h. Methods We assessed outcomes in an individual-patient-data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials of intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) versus control for acute ischemic stroke. Outcomes included: excellent outcome (modified Rankin score 0–1) at 3–6 months, the distribution of modified Rankin score, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90-day mortality. Results Alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0–1 among 2449/6136 (40%) patients who met the current European Union label and 3491 (57%) patients who met the age-revised label (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.21−1.68 and 1.43, 1.23−1.65, respectively), but not in those outside the age-revised label (1.06, 0.90−1.26). By 90 days, there was no increased mortality in the current and age-revised cohorts (hazard ratios 0.98, 95% CI 0.76−1.25 and 1.01, 0.86–1.19, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the age-revised label (1.19, 0.99–1.42). Similarly, alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0-1 among 1174/6136 (19%) patients who met the current US approval and 3326 (54%) who met a 4.5-h revised approval (odds ratio 1.55, 1.19−2.01 and 1.37, 1.17−1.59, respectively), but not for those outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.14, 0.97−1.34). By 90 days, no increased mortality remained for the current and 4.5-h revised label cohorts (hazard ratios 0.99, 0.77−1.26 and 1.02, 0.87–1.20, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.17, 0.98–1.41). Conclusions An age-revised European Union label or 4.5-h-revised United States label would each increase the number of patients deriving net benefit from alteplase by 90 days after acute ischemic stroke, without excess mortality.
Rethinking Training and Distribution of Vascular Neurology Interventionists in the Era of Thrombectomy
Background and Purpose— Age-related changes in the cerebrovasculature, including blood–brain barrier (BBB) disruption, are emerging as potential risks for diverse neurological conditions. Because the accumulation of senescent cells in tissues is increasingly recognized as a critical step leading to age-related organ dysfunction, we evaluated whether senescent vascular cells are associated with compromised BBB integrity. Methods— Effects of vascular cell senescence on tight junction and barrier integrity were studied using an in vitro BBB model, composed of endothelial cells, pericytes, and astrocytes. In addition, tight junction coverage in microvessels and BBB integrity in BubR1 hypomorphic (BubR1 H/H ) mice, which display senescence cell-dependent phenotypes, were examined. Results— When an in vitro BBB model was constructed with senescent endothelial cells and pericytes, tight junction structure and barrier integrity (evaluated by transendothelial electric resistance and tracer efflux assay using sodium fluorescein and Evans blue-albumin were significantly impaired. Endothelial cells and pericytes from BubR1 H/H mice had increased senescent-associated β-galactosidase activity and p16 INK4a expression, demonstrating an exacerbation of senescence. The coverage by tight junction proteins in the cortical microvessels were reduced in BubR1 H/H mice, consistent with a compromised BBB integrity from permeability assays. Importantly, the coverage of microvessels by end-feet of aquaporin 4–immunoreactive astrocytes was not altered in the cortex of the BubR1 H/H mice. Conclusions— Our results indicate that accumulation of senescent vascular cells is associated with compromised BBB integrity, providing insights into the mechanism of BBB disruption related to biological aging.
Background and Purpose —The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is accepted widely for measuring acute stroke deficits in clinical trials, but it contains items that exhibit poor reliability or do not contribute meaningful information. To improve the scale for use in clinical research, we used formal clinimetric analyses to derive a modified version, the mNIHSS. We then sought to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the new mNIHSS. Methods —The mNIHSS was derived from our prior clinimetric studies of the NIHSS by deleting poorly reproducible or redundant items (level of consciousness, face weakness, ataxia, dysarthria) and collapsing the sensory item into 2 responses. Reliability of the mNIHSS was assessed with the certification data originally collected to assess the reliability of investigators in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) rtPA (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) Stroke Trial. Validity of the mNIHSS was assessed with the outcome results of the NINDS rtPA Stroke Trial. Results —Reliability was improved with the mNIHSS: the number of scale items with poor κ coefficients on either of the certification tapes decreased from 8 (20%) to 3 (14%) with the mNIHSS. With the use of factor analysis, the structure underlying the mNIHSS was found identical to the original scale. On serial use of the scale, goodness of fit coefficients were higher with the mNIHSS. With data from part I of the trial data, the proportion of patients who improved ≥4 points within 24 hours after treatment was statistically significantly increased by tPA (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence limits, 1.0, 1.8; P =0.05). Likewise, the odds ratio for complete/nearly complete resolution of stroke symptoms 3 months after treatment was 1.7 (95% confidence limits, 1.2, 2.6) with the mNIHSS. Other outcomes showed the same agreement when the mNIHSS was compared with the original scale. The mNIHSS showed good responsiveness, ie, was useful in differentiating patients likely to hemorrhage or have a good outcome after stroke. Conclusions —The mNIHSS appears to be identical clinimetrically to the original NIHSS when the same data are used for validation and reliability. Power appears to be greater with the mNIHSS with the use of 24-hour end points, suggesting the need for fewer patients in trials designed to detect treatment effects comparable to rtPA. The mNIHSS contains fewer items and might be simpler to use in clinical research trials. Prospective analysis of reliability and validity, with the use of an independently collected cohort, must be obtained before the mNIHSS is used in a research setting.
Background and Purpose —The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a valid, reproducible scale that measures neurological deficit. Of 42 possible points, 7 points are directly related to measurement of language compared with only 2 points related to neglect. Methods —We examined the placebo arm of the NINDS t-PA stroke trial to test the hypothesis that the total volume of cerebral infarction in patients with right hemisphere strokes would be greater than the volume of cerebral infarction in patients with left hemisphere strokes who have similar NIHSS scores. The volume of stroke was determined by computerized image analysis of CT films and CT images stored on computer tape and optical disks. Cube-root transformation of lesion volume was performed for each CT. Transformed lesion volume was analyzed in a logistic regression model to predict volume of stroke by NIHSS score for each hemisphere. Spearman rank correlation was used to determine the relation between the NIHSS score and lesion volume. Results —The volume for right hemisphere stroke was statistically greater than the volume for left hemisphere strokes, adjusting for the baseline NIHSS ( P <0.001). For each 5-point category of the NIHSS score <20, the median volume of right hemisphere strokes was approximately double the median volume of left hemisphere strokes. For example, for patients with a left hemisphere stroke and a 24-hour NIHSS score of 16 to 20, the median volume of cerebral infarction was 48 mL (interquartile range 14 to 111 mL) as compared with 133 mL (interquartile range 81 to 208 mL) for patients with a right hemisphere stroke ( P <0.001). The median volume of a right hemisphere stroke was roughly equal to the median volume of a left hemisphere stroke in the next highest 5-point category of the NIHSS. The Spearman rank correlation between the 24-hour NIHSS score and 3-month lesion volume was 0.72 for patients with left hemisphere stroke and 0.71 for patients with right hemisphere stroke. Conclusions —For a given NIHSS score, the median volume of right hemisphere strokes is consistently larger than the median volume of left hemisphere strokes. The clinical implications of our finding need further exploration.