This study was designed to explore the treatment efficacy of arterial urokinase thrombolysis combined with Solitaire AB stent for acute cerebral infarction (ACI) and its influence on neuroprotective factors and factors for neurological injury.We randomly assigned 90 patients with ACI to receive arterial urokinase thrombolysis combined with Solitaire AB stent thrombectomy (observation group, OG) or to receive arterial urokinase thrombolysis (control group, CG). The two groups were compared in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, activities of daily living (ADL) score, vascular recanalization rate 1 month after treatment, and serum levels of neuroprotective factors (insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-1), neurotrophic factor (NTF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)) and factors for neurological injury (neuron-specific enolase (NSE), S100B protein (S100B), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)) before treatment and the day after treatment.The overall treatment response rate and vascular recanalization rate 1 month after treatment were markedly higher in OG than in CG (P<0.05). The NIHSS score decreased and the ADL score in both groups increased after treatment, with a lower NIHSS score and a higher ADL score in OG than in CG (all P<0.001). The difference in the complication rate between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The day after treatment, serum levels of IGF-1, NTF, VEGF, and BDNF in both groups increased while levels of NSE, S100B, UCH-L1, and GFAP in them decreased, with higher levels of IGF-1, NTF, VEGF, and BDNF, and lower levels of NSE, S100B, UCH-L1, and GFAP in OG than in CG (all P<0.05).Arterial urokinase thrombolysis combined with Solitaire AB stent thrombectomy can enhance the treatment efficacy for ACI, stimulate the release of neuroprotective factors, and suppress the release of factors for neurological injury, without aggravating the treatment risk.AJTR Copyright © 2021.

The updated American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA) Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke were published in January 2018.1 The purpose of the guidelines is to provide an up-to-date, comprehensive set of recommendations for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke in a single document. The guidelines detail new and updated recommendations that reflect and incorporate the most recent literature in the evaluation and management of acute ischemic stroke. Some sections of the latest guidelines have sparked debate in the medical community. Debate with regard to deciding the optimal diagnostic and treatment strategy for patients is healthy and anticipated with the release of new medical literature or recommendations. However, what is somewhat puzzling and unanticipated with the release of these new guidelines is that within two months of their release the AHA/ASA rescinded its recently released guidelines, publishing a "correction" in which several parts of the document have been deleted.2 An action such as this at the guideline level is unprecedented in recent history and has left stakeholders in the medical community somewhat confused as to the rationale for its occurrence. This article will inform the emergency medicine (EM) healthcare professional of the recent correction of the updated stroke guidelines, identify which sections have been removed (deleted), and will provide a brief summary of the pertinent updates (that have not been deleted) to the 2018 stroke guidelines that have particular relevance to the EM community.

The modified Rankin scale (mRS) is the most common assessment tool for measuring overall functional outcome in stroke studies. The traditional way of using mRS face-to-face is time- and cost-consuming. The aim of this study was to test the validity of the Swedish translation of the simplified modified Rankin scale questionnaire (smRSq) as compared with the mRS assessed face-to-face 6 months after a stroke.Within the ongoing EFFECTS trial, smRSq was sent out to 108 consecutive stroke patients 6 months after a stroke. The majority, 90% (97/108), of the patients answered the questionnaire; for the remaining 10%, it was answered by the next of kin. The patients were assessed by face-to-face mRS by 7 certified healthcare professionals at 4 Swedish stroke centres. The primary outcome was assessed by Cohen's kappa and weighted kappa.There was good agreement between postal smRSq, answered by the patients, and the mRS face-to-face; Cohen's kappa was 0.43 (CI 95% 0.31-0.55), weighted kappa was 0.64 (CI 95% 0.55-0.73), and Spearman rank correlation was 0.82 (p < 0.0001). In 55% (59/108), there was full agreement, and of the 49 patients not showing exact agreement, 44 patients differed by 1 grade and 5 patients had a difference of 2 grades.Our results show good validity of the postal smRSq, answered by the patients, compared with the mRS carried out face-to-face at 6 months after a stroke. This result could help trialists in the future simplify study design and make multicentre trials and quality registers with a large number of patients more feasible and time-saving.© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Optimal management of patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and low NIHSS score is unknown, which was the aim to investigate in this study.This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective single tertiary care centre 14-year cohort of patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and NIHSS score ≤ 5 on admission. Outcome was analysed according to primary intended therapy.Among 185 patients (median age 67.4 years), 52.4% received primary conservative therapy (including 26.8% secondary reperfusion in case of secondary neurological deterioration), 12.4% IV thrombolysis (IVT) only and 35.1% primary endovascular therapy (EVT). 95 (51.4%) patients experienced neurological deterioration until 3 months. Primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT compared to conservative-therapy patients had better 3 months' outcome (54.5% vs. 30.8%: OR 6.02; p = 0.004 for mRS 0-1 and 54.7% vs. 30.8%: OR 5.09; p = 0.002, respectively). Also mRS shift analysis favored primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT patients (OR 6.25; p = 0.001 and OR 3.14; p = 0.003). Outcome in primary-IVT-only vs. primary-EVT patients did not differ significantly. Patients who received secondary EVT because of neurological deterioration after primary-conservative-therapy had worse 3 months' outcome than primary-EVT patients (20.8% vs. 30.8%: OR 0.24; p = 0.047 for mRS 0-1 and OR 0.31; p = 0.019 in mRS shift analysis). Survival and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage did not differ amongst groups.Our data indicate that primary IVT and/or EVT may be better than primary conservative therapy in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and low NIHSS score. Furthermore, primary EVT was better than secondary EVT in case of neurological deterioration. There is an unmet need for RCTs to find the optimal therapy for this patient group.

Selecting stroke patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) based on prehospital stroke scales could provide a faster triage and transportation to a comprehensive stroke centre resulting a favourable outcome. We aimed here to explore the detailed severity assessment of Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) to improve its ability to detect LVO in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients.A cross-sectional analysis was performed in a prospectively collected registry of consecutive patients with first ever AIS admitted within 6 h after symptom onset. On admission stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and the presence of LVO was confirmed by computed tomography angiography (CTA) as an endpoint. A detailed version of CPSS (d-CPSS) was designed based on the severity assessment of CPSS items derived from NIHSS. The ability of this scale to confirm an LVO was compared to CPSS and NIHSS respectively.Using a ROC analysis, the AUC value of d-CPSS was significantly higher compared to the AUC value of CPSS itself (0.788 vs. 0.633, p < 0.001) and very similar to the AUC of NIHSS (0.795, p = 0.510). An optimal cut-off score was found as d-CPSS≥5 to discriminate the presence of LVO (sensitivity: 69.9%, specificity: 75.2%).A detailed severity assessment of CPSS items (upper extremity weakness, facial palsy and speech disturbance) could significantly increase the ability of CPSS to discriminate the presence of LVO in AIS patients.

Background and Purpose- The strong evidence of endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) is revealed. Such patients are required to direct transport to the hospital capable of endovascular therapy. There are several prehospital scales available for paramedics to predict LVO. However, they are time consuming, and several of them include factors caused by other types than LVO. Therefore, we need a fast, simple, and reliable prehospital scale for LVO. Methods- We developed a new prehospital stroke scale, emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) screen, for paramedics to predict LVO. The study was prospectively performed by multistroke centers. When paramedics referred to stroke center to accept suspected stroke patients, we obtain the following information over the telephone. ELVO screen was designed focusing on cortical symptoms: 1 observation; presence of eye deviation and 2 questions; paramedics show glasses, what is this? and paramedics show 4 fingers, how many fingers are there? If the presence of eye deviation or ≥1 of the 2 items were incorrect, ELVO screen was identified as positive. We evaluated between results of ELVO screen and presence of LVO on magnetic resonance angiography at hospital arrival. Results- A total of 413 patients (age, 74±13 years; men, 234 [57%]) were enrolled. Diagnosis was ischemic stroke, 271 (66%); brain hemorrhage 73 (18%); subarachnoid hemorrhage, 7 (2%); and not stroke, 62 (15%). One hundred fourteen patients had LVO (internal carotid artery, 33 [29%]; M1, 52 [46%]; M2, 21 [18%]; basilar artery, 5 [4%]; P1, 3 [3%]). Sensitively, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for ELVO screen to predict LVO were 85%, 72%, 54%, 93% and 76%, respectively. Among 233 patients with negative ELVO screen, only 17 (7%) had LVO, which indicated to be an ideal scale to avoid missing endovascular therapy. Conclusions- The ELVO screen is a simple, fast, and reliable prehospital scale for paramedics to identify stroke patients with LVO for whom endovascular therapy is an effective treatment.

Identification of emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) stroke has become increasingly important with the recent publications of favorable acute stroke thrombectomy trials. Multiple screening tools exist but the length of the examination and the false positive rate range from good to adequate. A screening tool was designed and tested in the emergency department using nurse responders without a scoring system.The vision, aphasia, and neglect (VAN) screening tool was designed to quickly assess functional neurovascular anatomy. While objective, there is no need to calculate or score with VAN. After training participating nurses to use it, VAN was used as an ELVO screen for all stroke patients on arrival to our emergency room before physician evaluation and CT scan.There were 62 consecutive code stroke activations during the pilot study. 19 (31%) of the patients were VAN positive and 24 (39%) had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of ≥6. All 14 patients with ELVO were either VAN positive or assigned a NIHSS score ≥6. While both clinical severity thresholds had 100% sensitivity, VAN was more specific (90% vs 74% for NIHSS ≥6). Similarly, while VAN and NIHSS ≥6 had 100% negative predictive value, VAN had a 74% positive predictive value while NIHSS ≥6 had only a 58% positive predictive value.The VAN screening tool accurately identified ELVO patients and outperformed a NIHSS ≥6 severity threshold and may best allow clinical teams to expedite care and mobilize resources for ELVO patients. A larger study to both validate this screening tool and compare with others is warranted.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.