Citations

Background New antiamyloid therapies (AAT) for treating patients with early Alzheimer disease (AD) have become available in the past 3 years. Although AAT can be beneficial in slowing progression of AD, they also come with potentially serious side effects, particularly for patients requiring anticoagulation or thrombolysis for cardiovascular conditions. Given that most patients with AD are older and likely to have cardiovascular risk factors, there is urgent need for additional guidance for clinicians about potential risks and benefits associated with AAT for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, best practices for management of these patients, and special considerations with respect to emergency evaluation and treatment of patients on AAT who develop acute neurological symptoms. Methods The American Heart Association convened 75 multidisciplinary experts for the Amyloid‐Related Imaging Abnormalities Summit: Cardiovascular and Stroke Considerations for β‐Amyloid Immunotherapy in AD in July 2025. These experts were divided into 8 work groups to evaluate the current evidence related to AAT usage in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and conditions and develop consensus‐based guidance for clinicians. Results This statement outlines the outcomes of the Summit, including considerations for prescribers, primary care professionals, emergency personnel, and health care system stakeholders. These considerations are intended to improve identification of patients as appropriate candidates for AAT, management of patients with co‐occurring AD and cardiovascular conditions, and their emergency evaluation and treatment. The statement also includes guidance for shared decision‐making, implementation of system changes for improving dementia care, and recommendations for future research and data collection to add to the body of evidence for treating patients with concomitant AD and cardiovascular conditions. Conclusions Building on lessons learned from the establishment of stroke systems of care, the consensus‐based considerations outlined in this document can serve as a foundation for AD systems of care aimed at ensuring optimal use of these ground‐breaking therapies.

Background and Purpose— The ABC/2 score estimates intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume, yet validations have been limited by small samples and inappropriate outcome measures. We determined accuracy of the ABC/2 score calculated at a specialized reading center (RC-ABC) or local site (site-ABC) versus the reference-standard computed tomography–based planimetry (CTP). Methods— In Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation-II (MISTIE-II), Clot Lysis Evaluation of Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage (CLEAR-IVH) and CLEAR-III trials. ICH volume was prospectively calculated by CTP, RC-ABC, and site-ABC. Agreement between CTP and ABC/2 was defined as an absolute difference up to 5 mL and relative difference within 20%. Determinants of ABC/2 accuracy were assessed by logistic regression. Results— In 4369 scans from 507 patients, CTP was more strongly correlated with RC-ABC ( r 2 =0.93) than with site-ABC ( r 2 =0.87). Although RC-ABC overestimated CTP-based volume on average (RC-ABC, 15.2 cm 3 ; CTP, 12.7 cm3), agreement was reasonable when categorized into mild, moderate, and severe ICH (κ=0.75; P <0.001). This was consistent with overestimation of ICH volume in 6 of 8 previous studies. Agreement with CTP was greater for RC-ABC (84% within 5 mL; 48% of scans within 20%) than for site-ABC (81% within 5 mL; 41% within 20%). RC-ABC had moderate accuracy for detecting ≥5 mL change in CTP volume between consecutive scans (sensitivity, 0.76; specificity, 0.86) and was more accurate with smaller ICH, thalamic hemorrhage, and homogeneous clots. Conclusions— ABC/2 scores at local or central sites are sufficiently accurate to categorize ICH volume and assess eligibility for the CLEAR-III and MISTIE III studies and moderately accurate for change in ICH volume. However, accuracy decreases with large, irregular, or lobar clots. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: MISTIE-II NCT00224770; CLEAR-III NCT00784134.

Background and Purpose— Hemicraniectomy and Durotomy Upon Deterioration From Infarction-Related Swelling Trial (HeADDFIRST) was a randomized pilot study to obtain information necessary to design a Phase III trial to evaluate the benefit of surgical decompression for brain swelling from large supratentorial cerebral hemispheric infarction. Methods— All patients with stroke were screened for eligibility (age 18–75 years, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale ≥18 with Item 1a<2 [responsive to minor stimulation], and CT demonstrating unilateral, complete middle cerebral artery territory infarction by specific imaging criteria). All enrolled patients were treated using a standardized medical treatment protocol. Those with both ≥4 mm of pineal shift and deterioration in level of arousal or ≥7.5 mm of anteroseptal shift within 96 hours of stroke onset were randomized to continued medical treatment only or medical treatment plus surgery. Death at 21 days was the primary outcome measure. Results— Among 4909 screened patients, only 66 (1.3%) patients were eligible for HeADDFIRST. Forty patients were enrolled, and 26 patients developed the requisite brain swelling for randomization. All who failed to meet randomization criteria were alive at 21 days. Mortality at 21 and 180 days was 40% (4/10) in the medical treatment only and 21% (3/14) and 36% (5/14) in the medical treatment plus surgery arms, respectively. Conclusions— HeADDFIRST randomization criteria effectively distinguished low from high risk of death from large supratentorial cerebral hemispheric infarction. Lower mortality in the medical treatment only group than in other published trials suggests a possible benefit to standardizing medical management. These results can inform the interpretation of recently completed European trials concerning patient selection and medical management. Clinical Trial Registration— This trial was not registered because enrollment began before July 1, 2005.