Search

Background: Acute intracranial occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) can be distinguished into (a) occlusion of the terminal ICA, involving the proximal segments of the middle or anterior cerebral artery (ICA-L/-T) and (b) non-terminal intracranial occlusions of the ICA with patent circle of Willis (ICA-I). While patients with ICA-L/-T occlusion were included in all randomized controlled trials on endovascular therapy (EVT) in anterior large vessel occlusion, data on EVT in ICA-I occlusion is scarce. We thus aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of EVT in ICA-I occlusions in comparison to ICA-L/-T occlusions., Methods: A large international multicentre cohort was searched for patients with intracranial ICA occlusion treated with EVT between 2014 and 2023. Patients were stratified by ICA occlusion pattern, differentiating ICA-I and ICA-L/-T occlusions. Baseline factors, technical (modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) scale) and functional outcomes (modified Rankin scale [mRS] at 3 months) as well as rates of (symptomatic) intracranial hemorrhage ([s]ICH) were analyzed., Results: Of 13,453 patients, 1825 (13.6%) had isolated ICA occlusion. ICA-occlusion pattern was ICA-I in 559 (4.2%) and ICA-L/-T in 1266 (9.4%) patients. Age (years: 74 vs 73), sex (female: 45.8% vs 49.0%) and pre-stroke functional independency (pre-mRS ⩽ 2: 89.9% vs 92.2%) did not differ between the groups. Stroke severity was lower in ICA-I patients (NIHSS at admission: 14 [7-19] vs 17 [13-21] points). EVT was similarly successful with respect to technical (mTICI2b/3: 76.1% (ICA-I) vs 76.6% (ICA-L/-T); aOR 1.01 [0.76-1.35]) and functional outcome (mRS ordinal shift cOR 1.01 [0.83-1.23] in adjusted analyses. Rates of ICH (18.9% vs 34.5%; aOR 0.47 [0.36-0.62] and sICH (4.7% vs 7.3%; aOR 0.58 [0.35-0.97] were lower in ICA-I patients., Conclusion: EVT might be performed safely and similarly successful in patients with ICA-I occlusions as in patients with ICA-L/-T occlusions., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: RRL received speaker honoraria from IscemaView, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Jansen, Biogen, Medtronic and Abott and advisory board honoraria from Jansen and Bayer.STE has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, and MindMaze and on the editorial board of Stroke. His institutions have received an educational grant from Pfizer, compensation from Stago for educational efforts and research support from Daiichi-Sankyo, the Science Funds [Wissenschaftsfonds] of the University Hospital Basel, the University Basel, from the “Wissenschaftsfonds Rehabilitation” of the University Hospital for Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, the “Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel,” the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the Swiss National Science Foundation.HG has received research support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, advisory board honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo and funding for travel from BMS/Pfizer.AZ received speaker honoraria from CSL Behring, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Alexion-Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo and advisory board honoraria from Bayer, Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo.DRJ received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Boehringer Ingelheim.VP received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Boehringer Ingelheim.H.J.A. reports receiving personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Roche that all produce products for hyperacute stroke care.MRH reports grants from SITEM Research Support Funds and Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, not directly related to this manuscript.AS received travel grants from NovoNordiskPM received grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and Faculty of Biology and Medicine of the Lausanne UniversityCHN reports receiving speaker honoraria from Abbot, Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Pfizer and Takeda, all outside the submitted work.All further authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the presented study.

Introduction: After positive findings in clinical trials the time window for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for patients with an acute ischemic stroke has been expanded up to 24 h from symptom onset or last seen well (LSW). We aimed to compare EVT patients' characteristics and outcomes in the early versus extended time window and to compare outcomes with the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trial results., Patients and Methods: Consecutive EVT patients from 16 mostly European comprehensive stroke centers from the EVA-TRISP cohort were included. We compared rates of 90-day good functional outcomes (Modified Rankin Scale 0-2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and 90-day mortality between patients treated in the early (<6 h after onset or LSW) versus extended (6-24 h after onset or LSW) time windows., Results: We included 9313 patients, of which 6876 were treated in the early and 2437 in the extended time window. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at presentation was lower in patients treated in the extended time window (median 13 [IQR 7-18] vs 15 [IQR 9-19], p  < 0.001). The percentage of patients with good functional outcome was slightly lower in the extended time window (37.4% vs 42.2%, p  < 0.001). However, rates of successful recanalization, sICH, and mortality were similar. Good functional outcome rates after EVT were slightly lower for patients in the extended window in the EVA-TRISP cohort as compared to DAWN and DEFUSE 3., Discussion and Conclusion: According to this large multicenter cohort study reflecting daily clinical practice, EVT use in the extended time window appears safe and effective., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Ivana Berisavac: speaker honoraria from Medtronic. Visnja Padjen: speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Boehringer Ingelheim. Ronen R. Leker: received speaker honoraria from IscemaView, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Jansen, Biogen, Medtronic and Abott and advisory board honoraria from Jansen and Filterlex. Andrea Zini: has received funding for speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, CSL Behring, for scientific advisory board from Bayer, Astra Zeneca. Mirjam R. Heldner: reports grants from Swiss National Science Foundation, SITEM Research Support Funds and Swiss Heart Foundation, not directly related to this manuscript. Christian H Nolte: has received honoraria for lectures or speaker’s bureau from Alexion, AstraZeneca, BMS, Novartis and Pfizer. The other authors report nothing to disclose.

Background: Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited., Methods: From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA., Results: We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p  < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p  < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group., Conclusion: Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: PB: Research funds by the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation and Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and funding for travel and conference fees from BMS/Pfizer. SW: Research funds by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the UZH Clinical research priority program (CRPP) stroke, the Swiss Heart foundation, the Zurich Neuroscience Center (ZNZ), speaker honoraria from Springer, Teva Pharma and consultancy fees from Bayer and Novartis. STE has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, and MindMaze and on the editorial board of Stroke. His institutions have received an educational grant from Pfizer, compensation from Stago for educational efforts and research support from Daiichi-Sankyo, the Science Funds [Wissenschaftsfonds] of the University Hospital Basel, the University Basel, from the “Wissenschaftsfonds Rehabilitation” of the University Department for Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, the “Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel,” the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the Swiss National Science Foundation. PR has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer and lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer and Daiichi Sankyo. His institution has received a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the ECASS-4 Study. RRL received funding for speaker honoraria from Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen and Iscehma View. He has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo-Nordisk and Bayer.

Background: Ischaemic stroke may occur despite antiplatelet therapy (APT). We aimed to investigate frequency, potential causes and outcomes in patients with ischaemic stroke despite APT., Methods: In this cohort study, we enrolled patients with imaging-confirmed ischaemic stroke from the Swiss Stroke Registry (01/2014-07/2022). We determined the frequency of prior APT, assessed stroke aetiology (modified TOAST classification) and determined the association of prior APT with unfavourable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 3-6) and recurrent ischaemic stroke at 3 months using regression models., Results: Among 53,352 patients, 27,484 (51.5%) had no prior antithrombotic treatment, 17,760 (33.3%) were on APT, 7039 (13.2%) on anticoagulation and 1069 (2.0%) were on APT + anticoagulation. In patients with a history of ischaemic stroke/TIA ( n  = 11,948; 22.4%), 2401 (20.1%) had no prior antithrombotic therapy, 6594 (55.2%) were on APT, 2489 (20.8%) on anticoagulation and 464 (3.9%) on APT + anticoagulation. Amongst patients with ischaemic stroke despite APT, aetiology was large artery atherosclerosis in 19.8% ( n  = 3416), cardiac embolism in 23.6% ( n  = 4059), small vessel disease in 11.7% ( n  = 2011), other causes in 7.4% ( n  = 1267), more than one cause in 6.3% ( n  = 1078) and unknown cause in 31.3% ( n  = 5388). Prior APT was not independently associated with unfavourable outcome (aOR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.14; p  = 0.135) or death (aOR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.99-1.21; p  = 0.059) at 3-months but with increased odds of recurrent stroke (6.0% vs 4.3%; aOR 1.26; 95% CI: 1.11-1.44; p  < 0.001)., Conclusions: One-third of ischaemic strokes occurred despite APT and 20% of patients with a history of ischaemic stroke had no antithrombotic therapy when having stroke recurrence. Aetiology of breakthrough strokes despite APT is heterogeneous and these patients are at increased risk of recurrent stroke.

Background: Early identification of patients developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and symptomatic brain edema after acute ischemic stroke is essential for clinical decision-making. Astroglial protein S-100B is a marker of blood-brain barrier disruption, which plays an important role in the formation of intracranial hemorrhage and brain edema. In this study, we assessed the prognostic value of serum S-100B for the development of these complications., Methods: Serum S-100B levels were measured within 24 h from symptom onset in 1749 consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients from the prospective, observational, multicenter BIOSIGNAL cohort study (mean age 72.0 years, 58.3% male). To determine symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage or symptomatic brain edema, follow-up neuroimaging was performed in all patients receiving reperfusion therapy or experiencing clinical worsening with an NIHSS increase of ⩾4., Results: Forty six patients (2.6%) developed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and 90 patients (5.2%) developed symptomatic brain edema. After adjustment for established risk factors, log 10 S-100B levels remained independently associated with both symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.7-6.9, p  = 0.001) and symptomatic brain edema (OR 4.08, 95% CI 2.3-7.1, p  < 0.001) in multivariable logistic regression models. Adding S-100B to the clinical prediction model increased the AUC from 0.72 to 0.75 ( p  = 0.001) for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and from 0.78 to 0.81 ( p  < 0.0001) for symptomatic brain edema., Conclusions: Serum S-100B levels measured within 24 h after symptom onset are independently associated with the development of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and symptomatic brain edema in acute ischemic stroke patients. Thus, S-100B may be useful for early risk-stratification regarding stroke complications., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: TH Nothing to report; JS Nothing to report; AB Nothing to report; LW Nothing to report; VS Nothing to report; CI Nothing to report; TP Nothing to report; MA reports honoraria and board involvements outside the submitted work; UF reports grants, consulting fees, honoraria and board involvements, outside the submitted work; LB Nothing to report; GM Nothing to report; KN Nothing to report; TK Nothing to report; CC reports fees outside the submitted work; GK reports grants outside the submitted work; JM Nothing to report; AB Nothing to report; EP Nothing to report; GN Nothing to report; CF reports a patent Use of GFAP for identification of intracerebral Hemorrhage US20150247867 licensed to Banyan Biomarkers; AL reports grants and fees outside the submitted work.; KS Nothing to report; LS Nothing to report; AvE reports grants, fees, honoraria and board involvements, outside the submitted work; MA Nothing to report; MKv reports grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (142422), the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Göhner Foundation and the Swiss Seaside Foundation as well as non-financial support from Roche diagnostics during the conduct of the study and is involved in the Advisory Board of AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, BMS/Pfizer and Medtronic outside the submitted work., (© European Stroke Organisation 2022.)

Introduction: Rapid treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) depends on sufficient staffing which differs between Stroke Centers and Stroke Units in Switzerland. We studied the effect of admission time on performance measures of AIS treatment and related temporal trends over time., Patients and Methods: We compared treatment rates, door-to-image-time, door-to-needle-time, and door-to-groin-puncture-time in stroke patients admitted during office hours (Monday-Friday 8:00-17:59) and non-office hours at all certified Stroke Centers and Stroke Units in Switzerland, as well as secular trends thereof between 2014 and 2019, using data from the Swiss Stroke Registry. Secondary outcomes were modified Rankin Scale and mortality at 3 months., Results: Data were eligible for analysis in 31,788 (90.2%) of 35,261 patients. Treatment rates for IVT/EVT were higher during non-office hours compared with office hours in Stroke Centers (40.8 vs 36.5%) and Stroke Units (21.8 vs 18.5%). Door-to-image-time and door-to-needle-time increased significantly during non-office hours. Median (IQR) door-to-groin-puncture-time at Stroke Centers was longer during non-office hours compared to office hours (84 (59-116) vs 95 (66-130) minutes). Admission during non-office hours was independently associated with worse functional outcome (1.11 [95%CI: 1.04-1.18]) and increased mortality (1.13 [95%CI: 1.01-1.27]). From 2014 to 2019, median door-to-groin-puncture-time improved and the treatment rate for wake-up strokes increased., Discussion and Conclusion: Despite differences in staffing, patient admission during non-office hours delayed IVT to a similar, modest degree at Stroke Centers and Stroke Units. A larger delay of EVT was observed during non-office hours, but Stroke Centers sped up delivery of EVT over time. Patients admitted during non-office hours had worse functional outcomes, which was not explained by treatment delays., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: VLA, SAS, PRW, MP, TK, AvH, TM, EC, SS, RS, JV, JN, LS, SR, MS, MLM, BR, GS report no conflicting interests. GMDM has received support from the Swiss National Science Foundation; Spezialprogramm Nachwuchsförderung Klinische Forschung, University of Basel; Science Funds of the University Hospital Basel; Swiss Heart Foundation; Bangerter-Rhyner-Stiftung; Swisslife Jubiläumsstiftung for Medical Research; Swiss Neurological Society; Fondazione Dr Ettore Balli; De Quervain research grant; Thermo-Fisher-GmbH; consultant honoraria by Bayer; speaker honoraria by Medtronic and BMS/Pfizer. HG has received research support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, advisory board honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo and funding for travel from BMS/Pfizer. STE has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Bayer Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, MindMaze, the editorial board of Stroke. He has received an educational grant from Pfizer and research support from the Science Funds of the University Hospital Basel, the University Basel, the Swiss Heart Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. KN received speaker’s fees from Abbott. MA received Speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Covidien; Scientific advisory board honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Pfizer, Covidien, Daichy Sankyo and Nestlé Health Science. Research grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. UF has received research support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation and Medtronic; he is a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, and CSL-Behring. PM received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Stryker. Consultant for Medtronic, Cerenovus, Phenox, Microvention, research grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation, Siemens and iSchemview. MG reports grants from Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation. JK reports grants from the Swiss Stroke Society and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences/Bangerter Foundation. PM has received has received through his institution research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation and the ERISTA program (Pfizer/BMS); consulting fees from Medtronic. All this support goes to his institution for stroke education and research. CWC has received modest honoraria for scientific advisory board from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim and iSchemaview; Research grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation. MB has received honoraria for travel from Bayer and for participation in advisory board from AstraZeneca. GK has received modest honoraria for travel and advisory board from Bayer, Medtronic, Alexion, Bial, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Zambon, a research grant from the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Parkinson Foundation, Swiss National Science Foundation. ARL has received modest honoraria for travel and advisory board from Bayer, Moleac and Amgen and research grants from the P&K Pühringer-Foundation. SW received research funds by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the UZH Clinical research priority program (CRPP) stroke, the Swiss Heart foundation, Boehringer-Ingelheim, speakers honorarium from Amgen and a consultancy fee from Bayer. NP has received research funding from the Swiss Heart Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation, speaker honoraria from Vifor; served on advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo and AstraZeneca. FM has received research support from the Swiss Heart Foundation and has not received any honoria from industry 2017. CBe received modest honoraria for travel and advisory board from Novartis and Bayer. CBo reports travel and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Sanofi, TEVA. LHB has received grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the University of Basel, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the “Stiftung zur Förderung der gastroenterologischen und allgemeinen klinischen Forschung sowie der medizinischen Bildauswertung.” Unrestricted research grant from AstraZeneca, consultancy or advisory board fees or speaker’s honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Claret Medical, and InnovHeart, and travel grants from AstraZeneca and Bayer., (© European Stroke Organisation 2022.)

Introduction: The type of antithrombotic treatment in cervical artery dissection patients is still a matter of debate. Most physicians prefer anticoagulants over antiplatelet agents for stroke prevention. However, this approach is not evidence-based and antiplatelets might be as safe and as effective. The 'Biomarkers and Antithrombotic Treatment in Cervical Artery Dissection' ('TREAT-CAD') trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02046460) compares Aspirin to oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists) with regard to efficacy and safety by using both clinical and imaging surrogate outcome measures. TREAT-CAD tests the hypothesis, that aspirin is as safe and effective as vitamin K antagonists., Patients and Methods: TREAD-CAD is a P rospective, R andomised controlled, O pen-labelled, multicentre, non-inferiority trial with B linded assessment of outcome E vents (PROBE-design). Key eligibility criteria are (i) clinical symptoms attributable to cervical artery dissection and (ii) verification of the cervical artery dissection diagnosis by established magnetic resonance imaging criteria. Patients are randomised to receive either Aspirin 300 mg daily or vitamin K antagonists for 90 days., Results: Primary outcomes are assessed at 14 ± 10 days (magnetic resonance imaging and clinical examination) and at 90 ± 30 days (clinical examinations). The primary endpoint is a composite outcome measure - labelled C erebrovascular I schemia, major H emorrhagic events or D eath (CIHD) - and includes (i) occurrence of any stroke (including retinal infarction), (ii) new ischaemic lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, (iii) any major extracranial haemorrhage, (iv) any symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (v) any new haemorrhagic lesion visible on paramagnetic-susceptible sequences and (vi) death., Discussion: After database closure, (i) central verification of cervical artery dissection diagnosis will be done by two experienced raters, (ii) adjudication of outcome events will be performed by independent adjudication committees, separately for clinical and imaging outcomes. The primary analysis will be done on the per protocol data set. The targeted sample size consists of 169 evaluable patients in the per protocol data set., Conclusion: TREAT-CAD is testing the non-inferiority of Aspirin versus vitamin K antagonists treatment in patients with symptomatic cervical artery dissection by combined clinical and magnetic resonance imaging outcomes., (© European Stroke Organisation 2020.)

Introduction: Alterations in haemoglobin levels are frequent in stroke patients. The prognostic meaning of anaemia and polyglobulia on outcomes in patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis is ambiguous., Patients and Methods: In this prospective multicentre, intravenous thrombolysis register-based study, we compared haemoglobin levels on hospital admission with three-month poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale 3-6), mortality and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study II-criteria (ECASS-II-criteria)). Haemoglobin level was used as continuous and categorical variable distinguishing anaemia (female: <12 g/dl; male: <13 g/dl) and polyglobulia (female: >15.5 g/dl; male: >17 g/dl). Anaemia was subdivided into mild and moderate/severe (female/male: <11 g/dl). Normal haemoglobin level (female: 12.0-15.5 g/dl, male: 13.0-17.0 g/dl) served as reference group. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with logistic regression models., Results: Among 6866 intravenous thrombolysis-treated stroke patients, 5448 (79.3%) had normal haemoglobin level, 1232 (17.9%) anaemia - of those 903 (13.2%) had mild and 329 (4.8%) moderate/severe anaemia - and 186 (2.7%) polyglobulia. Anaemia was associated with poor outcome (OR adjusted 1.25 (1.05-1.48)) and mortality (OR adjusted 1.58 (1.27-1.95)). In anaemia subgroups, both mild and moderate/severe anaemia independently predicted poor outcome (OR adjusted 1.29 (1.07-1.55) and 1.48 (1.09-2.02)) and mortality (OR adjusted 1.45 (1.15-1.84) and OR adjusted 2.00 (1.46-2.75)). Each haemoglobin level decrease by 1 g/dl independently increased the risk of poor outcome (OR adjusted 1.07 (1.02-1.11)) and mortality (OR adjusted 1.08 (1.02-1.15)). Anaemia was not associated with occurrence of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. Polyglobulia did not change any outcome., Discussion: The more severe the anaemia, the higher the probability of poor outcome and death. Severe anaemia might be a target for interventions in hyperacute stroke., Conclusion: Anaemia on admission, but not polyglobulia, is a strong and independent predictor of poor outcome and mortality in intravenous thrombolysis-treated stroke patients., (© European Stroke Organisation 2019.)

Introduction: In patients with stroke attributable to cervical artery dissection, we compared endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis regarding three-month outcome, recanalisation and complications., Materials and Methods: In a multicentre intravenous thrombolysis/endovascular therapy-register-based cohort study, all consecutive cervical artery dissection patients with intracranial artery occlusion treated within 6 h were eligible for analysis. Endovascular therapy patients (with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis) were compared to intravenous thrombolysis patients regarding (i) excellent three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1), (ii) symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (iii) recanalisation of the occluded intracranial artery and (iv) death. Upon a systematic literature review, we performed a meta-analysis comparing endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients regarding three-month outcome using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model., Results: Among 62 cervical artery dissection patients (median age 48.8 years), 24 received intravenous thrombolysis and 38 received endovascular therapy. Excellent three-month outcome occurred in 23.7% endovascular therapy and 20.8% with intravenous thrombolysis patients. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred solely among endovascular therapy patients (5/38 patients, 13.2%) while four (80%) of these patients had bridging therapy; 6/38 endovascular therapy and 0/24 intravenous thrombolysis patients died. Four of these 6 endovascular therapy patients had bridging therapy. Recanalisation was achieved in 84.2% endovascular therapy patients and 66.7% intravenous thrombolysis patients (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval [0.9-11.38]). Sensitivity analyses in a subgroup treated within 4.5 h revealed a higher recanalisation rate among endovascular therapy patients (odds ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval [1.00-14.95]), but no change in the key clinical findings. In a meta-analysis across eight studies (n = 212 patients), cervical artery dissection patients (110 intravenous thrombolysis and 102 endovascular therapy) showed identical odds for favourable outcome (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.38-2.44]) among endovascular therapy patients and intravenous thrombolysis patients., Discussion and Conclusion: In this cohort study, there was no clear signal of superiority of endovascular therapy over intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients, which - given the limitation of our sample size - does not prove that endovascular therapy in these patients cannot be superior in future studies. The observation that symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and deaths in the endovascular therapy group occurred predominantly in bridging patients requires further investigation., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.