Search

Background The risk of recurrent stroke among patients with symptomatic carotid near-occlusion is not well established, and management of the condition remains controversial. Symptomatic carotid near-occlusion with full collapse has been identified as a strong predictor of early recurrence. We aimed to analyze the 90-day risk of recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke in medically treated patients with symptomatic carotid near-occlusion. Methods We performed a multicenter, nationwide, prospective study from January 2010 to May 2016. Patients with angiography-confirmed symptomatic carotid near-occlusion were included. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 90 days after the presenting event. For this analysis, patients who underwent revascularization within 90 days after stroke were excluded. Results The study population comprised 141 patients from 17 Spanish centers; 83 patients were treated medically. Primary endpoint occurred in eight patients, resulting in a cumulative rate of 10.6% (95% CI, 3.7–17.5). Previous history of stroke or transient ischemic attack was identified as an independent predictor for recurrence in the multivariate Cox regression analysis (HR, 4.37 [95% CI, 1.05–18.18]; p = 0.043), while the presence of full collapse was not associated with an increased risk (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.17–3.92]; p = 0.793). The risk of recurrence was also not affected by the presence of significant stenosis or occlusion of the contralateral carotid artery, or by the collateral circulation. Conclusions Patients with symptomatic carotid near-occlusion seem to have an increased risk of early ipsilateral recurrent stroke. Our results contrast with the low risk of symptomatic carotid near-occlusion reported to date. Full collapse did not increase the risk of recurrent stroke in our study.

The Iberoamerican Cerebrovascular Diseases Society was founded 15 years ago. Being aware of the increased burden of stroke in Latin America, its members have been working to enhance the knowledge on stroke among physicians in the region, to increase public awareness on stroke warning signs, and to motivate public health authorities to implement programs that speed the access of stroke patients to specialized units. Besides organizing annual meetings that have convened an increasing number of attendees, the Society has been actively involved in the elaboration of guidelines for stroke classification and therapy that will be practical for use at a regional level, as well as in the consolidation of links with other stroke societies to increase the diffusion of local stroke issues to the medical community at large. The Society is also involved in the Safe Implementation of Treatment in Stroke trial as well as in other studies that will increase the knowledge on stroke management and prognosis in the region.

Background Small clinical series have reported the safety of intravenous thrombolysis in ischemic stroke related to extracranial internal carotid dissection. However, no studies specifically analyzing the effects on stroke outcome are available. Aims Our goal was to evaluate whether patients with ischemic stroke related to extracranial internal carotid dissection obtain any benefit from intravenous thrombolysis. Methods Multicenter, prospective and observational study conducted in four university hospitals from the Madrid Stroke Network. Consecutive ischemic stroke patients who received intravenous thrombolysis were included, as well as patients with extracranial internal carotid dissection regardless of intravenous thrombolysis treatment. Stroke severity (NIHSS) and three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale) were compared between the following groups: ( 1 ) intravenous thrombolysis-treated patients with ischemic stroke related to extracranial internal carotid dissection vs. other causes of stroke; ( 2 ) intravenous thrombolysis-treated extracranial internal carotid dissection patients vs. nonintravenous thrombolysis treated. Outcome was rated at three-months using the modified Rankin Scale. A good outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score ≤2. Results A total of 625 intravenous thrombolysis-treated patients were included; 16 (2·56%) had extracranial internal carotid dissection. Besides, 27 patients with extracranial internal carotid dissection and ischemic stroke who did not receive intravenous thrombolysis were also included. As compared with other etiologies, patients with extracranial internal carotid dissection were younger, had similar stroke severity and showed less improvement in their NIHSS score at Day 7 (1·38; (95% CI −3·77 to 6·54) vs. 6·81; (95% CI −5·99 to 7·63) P=0·004), but without differences in good outcomes at three-months (43·8% vs. 58·2%; NS). Extracranial internal carotid dissection intravenous thrombolysis-treated patients had more severe strokes at admission than those who were nonintravenous thrombolysis treated (median NIHSS: 15 vs. 7; P=0·031). Intravenous thrombolysis was safe in extracranial internal carotid dissection with no symptomatic hemorrhagic events; however, without differences in good outcome compared with the natural course of extracranial internal carotid dissection (nonintravenous thrombolysis treated) after adjustment for stroke severity (46·7% vs. 64·3%; NS). Conclusions As compared with other etiologies, stroke due to extracranial internal carotid dissection seems to obtain similar benefits from intravenous thrombolysis in outcome at three-months. Although intravenous thrombolysis is safe in stroke attributable to extracranial internal carotid dissection, no differences in outcome were found when comparing intravenous thrombolysis treated with nonintravenous thrombolysis-treated patients, even after adjustment for stroke severity.