Search

Background: Short and rare episodes of atrial fibrillation (AF) are commonly detected using implanted devices (device-detected AF) in patients with prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). The effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation in patients with prior stroke or TIA and device-detected AF but with no ECG-documented AF is unclear., Methods and Results: This prespecified analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 (Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial High Rate Episodes) trial with post hoc elements assessed the effect of oral anticoagulation in patients with device-detected AF with and without a prior stroke or TIA in the randomized, double-blind, double-dummy NOAH-AFNET 6 trial. Outcomes were stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death (primary outcome) and major bleeding and death (safety outcome). A prior stroke or TIA was found in 253 patients with device-detected AF randomized in the NOAH-AFNET 6 (mean age, 78 years; 36.4% women). There was no treatment interaction with prior stroke or TIA for any of the primary and secondary time-to-event outcomes. In patients with a prior stroke or TIA, 14 out of 122 patients experienced a primary outcome event with anticoagulation (5.7% per patient-year). Without anticoagulation, there were 16 out of 131 patients with an event (6.3% per patient-year). The rate of stroke was lower than expected (anticoagulation: 4 out of 122 [1.6% per patient-year]; no anticoagulation: 6 out of 131 [2.3% per patient-year]). Numerically, there were more major bleeding events with anticoagulation in patients with prior stroke or TIA (8 out of 122 patients) than without anticoagulation (2 out of 131 patients)., Conclusions: Anticoagulation appears to have ambiguous effects in patients with device-detected AF and a prior stroke or TIA in this hypothesis-generating analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 in the absence of ECG-documented AF, partially due to a low rate of stroke without anticoagulation.

Background and Aims: Patients with long atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) ≥24 h and stroke risk factors are often treated with anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Anticoagulation has never been compared with no anticoagulation in these patients., Methods: This secondary pre-specified analysis of the Non-vitamin K antagonist Oral anticoagulants in patients with Atrial High-rate episodes (NOAH-AFNET 6) trial examined interactions between AHRE duration at baseline and anticoagulation with edoxaban compared with placebo in patients with AHRE and stroke risk factors. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular death. The safety outcome was a composite of major bleeding and death. Key secondary outcomes were components of these outcomes and electrocardiogram (ECG)-diagnosed atrial fibrillation., Results: Median follow-up of 2389 patients with core lab-verified AHRE was 1.8 years. AHRE ≥24 h were present at baseline in 259/2389 patients (11%, 78 ± 7 years old, 28% women, CHA2DS2-VASc 4). Clinical characteristics were not different from patients with shorter AHRE. The primary outcome occurred in 9/132 patients with AHRE ≥24 h (4.3%/patient-year, 2 strokes) treated with anticoagulation and in 14/127 patients treated with placebo (6.9%/patient-year, 2 strokes). Atrial high-rate episode duration did not interact with the efficacy (P-interaction = .65) or safety (P-interaction = .98) of anticoagulation. Analyses including AHRE as a continuous parameter confirmed this. Patients with AHRE ≥24 h developed more ECG-diagnosed atrial fibrillation (17.0%/patient-year) than patients with shorter AHRE (8.2%/patient-year; P < .001)., Conclusions: This hypothesis-generating analysis does not find an interaction between AHRE duration and anticoagulation therapy in patients with device-detected AHRE and stroke risk factors. Further research is needed to identify patients with long AHRE at high stroke risk., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: People with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischaemic stroke than the general population and infrequent spontaneous bleeding, suggesting that factor XI has a more important role in thrombosis than in haemostasis. Milvexian, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of activated factor XI, added to standard antiplatelet therapy, might reduce the risk of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. We aimed to estimate the dose-response of milvexian for recurrent ischaemic cerebral events and major bleeding in patients with recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA)., Methods: AXIOMATIC-SSP was a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial done at 367 hospitals in 27 countries. Eligible participants aged 40 years or older, with acute (<48 h) ischaemic stroke or high-risk TIA, were randomly assigned by a web-based interactive response system in a 1:1:1:1:1:2 ratio to receive one of five doses of milvexian (25 mg once daily, 25 mg twice daily, 50 mg twice daily, 100 mg twice daily, or 200 mg twice daily) or matching placebo twice daily for 90 days. All participants received clopidogrel 75 mg daily for the first 21 days and aspirin 100 mg daily for the first 90 days. Investigators, site staff, and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of ischaemic stroke or incident covert brain infarct on MRI at 90 days, assessed in all participants allocated to treatment who completed a follow-up MRI brain scan, and the primary analysis assessed the dose-response relationship with Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling (MCP-MOD). The main safety outcome was major bleeding at 90 days, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03766581) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (2017-005029-19)., Findings: Between Jan 27, 2019, and Dec 24, 2021, 2366 participants were randomly allocated to placebo (n=691); milvexian 25 mg once daily (n=328); or twice-daily doses of milvexian 25 mg (n=318), 50 mg (n=328), 100 mg (n=310), or 200 mg (n=351). The median age of participants was 71 (IQR 62-77) years and 859 (36%) were female. At 90 days, the estimates of the percentage of participants with either symptomatic ischaemic stroke or covert brain infarcts were 16·8 (90·2% CI 14·5-19·1) for placebo, 16·7 (14·8-18·6) for 25 mg milvexian once daily, 16·6 (14·8-18·3) for 25 mg twice daily, 15·6 (13·9-17·5) for 50 mg twice daily, 15·4 (13·4-17·6) for 100 mg twice daily, and 15·3 (12·8-19·7) for 200 mg twice daily. No significant dose-response was observed among the five milvexian doses for the primary composite efficacy outcome. Model-based estimates of the relative risk with milvexian compared with placebo were 0·99 (90·2% CI 0·91-1·05) for 25 mg once daily, 0·99 (0·87-1·11) for 25 mg twice daily, 0·93 (0·78-1·11) for 50 mg twice daily, 0·92 (0·75-1·13) for 100 mg twice daily, and 0·91 (0·72-1·26) for 200 mg twice daily. No apparent dose-response was observed for major bleeding (four [1%] of 682 participants with placebo, two [1%] of 325 with milvexian 25 mg once daily, two [1%] of 313 with 25 mg twice daily, five [2%] of 325 with 50 mg twice daily, five [2%] of 306 with 100 mg twice daily, and five [1%] of 344 with 200 mg twice daily). Five treatment-emergent deaths occurred, four of which were considered unrelated to the study drug by the investigator., Interpretation: Factor XIa inhibition with milvexian, added to dual antiplatelet therapy, did not substantially reduce the composite outcome of symptomatic ischaemic stroke or covert brain infarction and did not meaningfully increase the risk of major bleeding. Findings from our study have informed the design of a phase 3 trial of milvexian for the prevention of ischaemic stroke in patients with acute ischaemic stroke or TIA., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MS has received consulting fees from Janssen, HLS Therapeutics, and Bayer; and has served in a leadership or fiduciary role for the Canadian Stroke Consortium. CAM has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim. KT has received honoraria from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Otsuka, Novartis, and Abbott Medical. DB has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Ipsen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk, HUMAN BioPlazma, and Parexel. SEK has received grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb; and has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb. HL has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb; has participated on steering committees or advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and Coherex Medical; and is on the Editorial Board for Medscape Neurology. GT has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb. GN has received financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb. AC has participated on a steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb; has received grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb; and has previously served as the President of the Cerebrovascular Section of Polish Neurological Society, honorary president of the Polish Neurological Society, and in a leadership role for the Angels Initiative— Poland. PA has participated on a steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen; has received grants or contracts from Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, AltheraPharm, and the French Government; has received consulting fees from Bayer, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk; has received honoraria from Viatris and Sanofi; and has participated in an advisory board for Novartis. ME has received grants or contracts from Bayer; has received consulting fees from Bayer; has received honoraria from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi, and Novartis; has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Covidien; has served in a leadership or fiduciary role for the European Academy of Neurology, German Neurological Society (DGN), International Society for Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, European Stroke Organisation, World Stroke Organization, German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE); and has been a recipient of materials from Amgen. DTa has received consulting fees from QuantaIX Neuroscience, Babylink, and Pi-cardia, and for being a national leader in a randomised controlled trial. DTo has received honoraria from Abbott, Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Pfizer. LY has participated in steering committees for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen Research & Development; has received honoraria from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi Sankyo; and has received support for attendance at the World Stroke Congress from the World Stroke Organization Future Stroke Leaders Program. PvWM has received contracts and support for attending an investigator meeting from Bristol Myers Squibb; and has served as a national leader and member of a steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb. GSS has received support from and participated on a steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb; has received grants or contracts from Boehringer Ingelheim; has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has participated in an advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb. AAv has received grants and honoraria from Bayer. JD has received support from Bristol Myers Squibb; has received grants from Pfizer; and has received honoraria from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. DS has received contracts, support for attending a steering committee meeting, and materials and drugs for performing the trial from Bristol Myers Squibb. TT has received grants from the University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and Wennerstrom's Foundation; and has received consulting fees from Bayer, Inventiva Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Portola Pharmaceuticals. JE has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb for attending steering committee meetings. SFA has received grants from Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk and Abbott. JRW has served as President Elect of the Austrian Society of Neurology. ECS has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Boston Scientific. NGP has served as the President of the Russian National Society of Preventive Cardiology. PML has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen; has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer; has received support for attending the Global Stroke Alliance; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for RapidAI; and has served as the President of the Chilean Stroke Association. DG has received grants or contracts, or both, from the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the US National Institutes of Health; has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ionis, Janssen, and Anthos Therapeutics; and has participated on a steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb. HCD has received support from Bristol Myers Squibb; has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb; has received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Boehringer Ingelheim; and has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Actelion, the German Research Council, and the ELAN Study. RAB has received consulting fees from and has participated on a steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb. CC has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Amgen; and has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Biogen. GA, MD, and CP are employees and shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. AK and DL are employees and shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb; and have a pending patent application related to this study. GJH has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Research & Development, and Bayer; has received honoraria from Janssen Medical Affairs; has received honoraria for participating on a data safety monitoring board for AC Immune; and has received honoraria from the American Heart Association for serving as an Associate Editor for Circulation. SIB, AS, BWY, and AAr declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal timing of initiating or resuming anticoagulation after acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is debated. Dabigatran, a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC), has shown superiority against vitamin K antagonists (VKA) regarding hemorrhagic complications., Aims: In this registry study, we investigated the initiation of dabigatran in the early phase after AIS or TIA., Methods: PRODAST (Prospective Record of the Use of Dabigatran in Patients with Acute Stroke or TIA) is a prospective, multicenter, observational, post-authorization safety study. We recruited 10,039 patients at 86 German stroke units between July 2015 and November 2020. A total of 3,312 patients were treated with dabigatran or VKA and were eligible for the analysis that investigates risks for major hemorrhagic events within 3 months after early (⩽ 7 days) or late (> 7 days) initiation of dabigatran or VKA initiated at any time. Further endpoints were recurrent stroke, ischemic stroke, TIA, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, death, and a composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, life-threatening bleeding and death., Results: Major bleeding event rates per 10,000 treatment days ranged from 1.9 for late administered dabigatran to 4.9 for VKA. Early or late initiation of dabigatran was associated with a lower hazard for major hemorrhages as compared to VKA use. The difference was pronounced for intracranial hemorrhages with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10-2.21) for early dabigatran use versus VKA use and an adjusted HR of 0.09 (95% CI: 0.00-13.11) for late dabigatran use versus VKA use. No differences were found between early initiation of dabigatran versus VKA use regarding ischemic endpoints., Conclusions: The early application of dabigatran appears to be safer than VKA administered at any time point with regards to the risk of hemorrhagic complications and in particular for intracranial hemorrhage. This result, however, must be interpreted with caution in view of the low precision of the estimate., 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: H-CD has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Portola, and WebMD Global. Boehringer Ingelheim provided financial support for research projects. H-CD received research grants from the German Research Council (DFG) and German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). H-CD serves as editor of Neurologie up2date, Info Neurologie & Psychiatrie and Arzneimitteltherapie, as co-editor of Cephalalgia, and on the editorial board of Lancet Neurology and Drugs. GR received speaker’s honoraria and reimbursement for congress traveling and accommodation from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. SP received research support from BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, European Union, German Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Helena Laboratories and Werfen as well as speakers’ honoraria/consulting fees from Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Werfen (all outside the submitted work). KG received support by Alexion Pharma Germany GmbH, Abbott Medical GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH. CCE is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the content of the presented work.

Background: We hypothesized that treatment delays might be an effect modifier regarding risks and benefits of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before mechanical thrombectomy (MT)., Methods: We used the dataset of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial, which randomized 408 patients to IVT+MT or MT alone. Potential interactions between assignment to IVT+MT and expected time from onset-to-needle (OTN) as well as expected time from door-to-needle (DTN) were included in regression models. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included mRS shift, mortality, recanalization rates, and (symptomatic) intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours., Results: We included 408 patients (IVT+MT 207, MT 201, median age 72 years (IQR 64-81), 209 (51.2%) female). The expected median OTN and DTN were 142 min and 54 min in the IVT+MT group and 129 min and 51 min in the MT alone group. Overall, there was no significant interaction between OTN and bridging IVT assignment regarding either the functional (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.30) and safety outcomes or the recanalization rates. Analysis of in-hospital delays showed no significant interaction between DTN and bridging IVT assignment regarding the dichotomized functional outcome (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.62), but the shift and mortality analyses suggested a greater benefit of IVT when in-hospital delays were short., Conclusions: We found no evidence that the effect of bridging IVT on functional independence is modified by overall or in-hospital treatment delays. Considering its low power, this subgroup analysis could have missed a clinically important effect, and exploratory analysis of secondary clinical outcomes indicated a potentially favorable effect of IVT with shorter in-hospital delays. Heterogeneity of the IVT effect size before MT should be further analyzed in individual patient meta-analysis of comparable trials., Trial Registration Number: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03192332., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MA reports honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Covidien, Medtronic and Sanofi; Participation on Scientific Advisory Boards of Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer. CC reports consulting fees from Medtronic (payment made to CC). EC reports grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation and Swiss National Science Foundation, not related to present study. HCD reports that in the last 3 years, he received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Portola and WebMD Global. Boehringer Ingelheim provided financial support for research projects. HCD also received research grants from the German Research Council (DFG) and German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). HCD serves as editor of Neurologie up2date, Info Neurologie & Psychiatrie, Arzneimitteltherapie, as co-editor of Cephalalgia and on the editorial board of Lancet Neurology and Drugs. MTF reports research grants from Medtronic, Siemens, Genentech, Idorsia, and Vesalio; consulting fees from Genentech, Balt USA, Cerenovus, and Oculus Imaging; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Balt USA, Jacobs Institute, and Imperative Care. UF reports financial support for the present study from Medtronic. SWIFT DIRECT is an investigator-initiated trial. The sponsor was not involved in the final study design, protocol, conduct, evaluation of results or preparation of the manuscript. UF also reports research grants from Medtronic BEYOND SWIFT registry, Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation; consulting fees from Medtronic, Stryker and CSL Behring (fees paid to institution); membership of a Data Safety Monitoring Board for the IN EXTREMIS trial and TITAN trial and Portola (Alexion) Advisory board (fees paid to institution); and Vice Presidency of the Swiss Neurological Society. UF is a member of the editorial board of JNIS. JG reports a Swiss National Funds (SNF) grant for MRI in stroke. JK reports financial support of Medtronic for the BEYOND SWIFT Registry (fees paid to institution); research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation supporting the TECNO trial (fees paid to institution); Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences research grant supporting MRI research (fees paid to institution); Swiss Heart Foundation research grant supporting cardiac MRI in the etiological workup of stroke patients (fees paid to institution). AL reports grants from the University of Zurich, the LOOP Zurich, and P&K Pühringer Foundation; consulting fees from Bayer AG; and a lecture honorarium from Moleac Pte, Singapore. DSL reports consulting fees from Cerenovus, Genentech, Medtronic, Stryker, Rapid Medical as imaging core lab. GM reports consulting fees from Stryker Neurovascular; paid lectures for Medtronic and Microvention Europe. PM reports research funding (fees paid to institution) from the Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation and Medtronic Research Grant. PM reports grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation; Consulting fees Medtronic, Stryker; payment or honoraria from Medtronic, Stryker; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of MicroVention. ON reports funding from a Stryker Research grant; payment or honoraria for Phenox lecture and Stryker lecture. WP reports grants from the German Research Foundation, LOEWE (research funding of the federal state of Hesse); royalties or licenses STROKE TEAM-Training (LAERDAL medical); payment or honoraria from LAERDAL medical, Alexion, Pfizer-BMS, Stryker Neurovascular; support for attending meetings and/or travel from LAERDAL medical, Alexion, Pfizer-BMS and Stryker Neurovascular. MR reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Stryker, Cerenovus, Philips and Apta Targets; payment or honoraria from Ischemia View; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Sensome; stock or stock options in Anaconda Biomed, CVAid and Methinks. AHS reports being a co-investigator for NIH - 1R01EB030092-01, Project Title: High Speed Angiography at 1000 frames per second; Mentor for Brain Aneurysm Foundation Carol W. Harvey Chair of Research, Sharon Epperson Chair of Research, Project Title: A Whole Blood RNA Diagnostic for Unruptured Brain Aneurysm: Risk Assessment Prototype Development and Testing; receipt of consulting fees from Amnis Therapeutics, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc, Cardinal Health 200, LLC, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Inc, Cerenovus, Cerevatech Medical, Inc, Cordis, Corindus, Inc, Endostream Medical, Ltd, Imperative Care, InspireMD, Ltd, Integra, IRRAS AB, Medtronic, MicroVention, Minnetronix Neuro, Inc, Peijia Medical, Penumbra, Q’Apel Medical, Inc, Rapid Medical, Serenity Medical, Inc, Silk Road Medical, StimMed, LLC, Stryker Neurovascular, Three Rivers Medical, Inc, VasSol, Viz.ai, Inc (payments made to AHS); Secretary – Board of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2020-2021 (unpaid) Chair – Cerebrovascular Section of the AANS/CNS 2020-2021 (unpaid); stock or stock options Adona Medical, Inc, Amnis Therapeutics, Bend IT Technologies, Ltd, BlinkTBI, Inc, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Inc, Cerevatech Medical, Inc, Cognition Medical, CVAID Ltd, E8, Inc, Endostream Medical, Ltd, Galaxy Therapeutics, Inc, Imperative Care, Inc, InspireMD, Ltd, Instylla, Inc, International Medical Distribution Partners, Launch NY, Inc, NeuroRadial Technologies, Inc, NeuroTechnology Investors, Neurovascular Diagnostics, Inc, Peijia Medical, PerFlow Medical, Ltd, Q’Apel Medical, Inc, QAS.ai, Inc, Radical Catheter Technologies, Inc, Rebound Therapeutics Corp (purchased 2019 by Integra Lifesciences, Corp), Rist Neurovascular, Inc (Purchased 2020 by Medtronic), Sense Diagnostics, Inc, Serenity Medical, Inc, Silk Road Medical, Sim & Cure, SongBird Therapy, Spinnaker Medical, Inc, StimMed, LLC, Synchron, Inc, Three Rivers Medical, Inc, Truvic Medical, Inc, Tulavi Therapeutics, Inc, Vastrax, LLC, VICIS, Inc, Viseon, Inc (payments made to AHS); Other financial or non-financial interests: National PI/Steering Committees: Cerenovus EXCELLENT and ARISE II Trial; Medtronic SWIFT PRIME, VANTAGE, EMBOLISE and SWIFT DIRECT Trials; MicroVention FRED Trial & CONFIDENCE Study; MUSC POSITIVE Trial; Penumbra 3D Separator Trial, COMPASS Trial, INVEST Trial, MIVI neuroscience EVAQ Trial; Rapid Medical SUCCESS Trial; InspireMD C-GUARDIANS IDE Pivotal Trial (payments made to AHS). IS reports consulting fees (paid to IS) from Sanofi Synthé-Labo, Servier, Boheringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novonordisk and Medtronic; payment or honoraria (paid to IS) from Sanofi Synthé-Labo, Medtronic, Boheringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and BMS-Pfizer. JS reports funding for the present manuscript from Medtronic (paid to JS); consulting fees from Cerenovus (paid to JS); participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board – MIVI (paid to JS), Phillips (paid to JS); stock or stock options in Rapid Medical (paid to JS). MW reports a grant from Stryker Neurovascular; consulting fees from Stryker Neurovascular (payments to MW); payment or honoraria from Stryker Neurovascular, Bracco Imaging (payments to MW); German Society of Neuroradiology (DGNR) Board member (no payments); receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from ab medica, Acandis, Bracco Imaging, Cerenovus, Kaneka Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Mentice AB, Phenox, Stryker Neurovascular (support to institution). All other authors report no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients who had a cryptogenic stroke (CS) suspected to be causally related to a patent foramen ovale (PFO) are candidates for percutaneous PFO closure. In such patients, it is important to screen for atrial fibrillation (AF). Limited guidance is available regarding AF monitoring strategies in CS patients with PFO addressing optimal monitoring technology and duration., Aim: To provide a narrative review of cardiac rhythm monitoring in CS patients considered for PFO closure, including current practices, stroke recurrences after CS, findings from monitoring studies in CS patients, and predictors for AF detection published in the literature. To propose a personalized strategy for cardiac monitoring in CS patients, accounting for aspects predicting AF detection., Summary of Review: AF detection in CS patients is predicted by age, left atrial enlargement, prolonged PR interval, frequent premature atrial contractions, interatrial conduction block, diabetes, prior brain infarctions, leukoaraiosis, elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)/N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and a family history of AF, as well as composed scores (e.g. CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc, atrial fibrillation in embolic stroke of undetermined source (AF-ESUS)). The causal role of the PFO may be accounted for by the risk of paradoxical embolism (RoPE) score and/or the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification., Conclusion: A personalized approach to AF detection in CS patients is proposed, accounting for the likelihood of AF detection and aimed at obtaining sufficient confidence regarding the absence of AF in patients considered for PFO closure. In addition, the impact of high-risk PFO features on the monitoring strategy is discussed.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation and a history of stroke are at high risk of recurrent stroke and cardiovascular complications. In the EAST-AFNET 4 trial we showed that a systematic strategy of early rhythm control was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes than usual care in patients with atrial fibrillation diagnosed in the past 12 months. In this pre-specified subgroup analysis we aimed to assess whether a strategy of early rhythm control is safe and can prevent adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual care in such patients., Methods: EAST-AFNET 4 was a randomised, open-label trial with blinded-outcome assessment done at 135 hospitals and secondary care practices in 11 European countries. Adults with early atrial fibrillation (ie, diagnosed ≤12 months before enrolment) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either early rhythm control or usual care, with stratification according to site and variable block lengths used for concealment. The first primary outcome was time to first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, or hospital admission with worsening of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome. The second primary outcome was the number of nights spent in hospital in 1 year. The primary safety outcome was the composite of any death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm-control therapy. Here we present the results of these outcomes in patients with a history of stroke. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. EAST-AFNET 4 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01288352), EudraCT (2010-021258-20), and ISRCTN (ISRCTN04708680)., Findings: Between July 28, 2011, and Dec 30, 2016, 2789 patients were randomly assigned in the EAST-AFNET 4 trial to either early rhythm control (n=1395) or usual care (n=1394). Of these patients, five had no information on history of stroke and were excluded from this subgroup analysis. 217 (8%) patients had a history of stroke, of whom 110 were assigned to early rhythm control and 107 to usual care. The median age of participants with a history of stroke was 72·0 years (IQR 66·0-76·0). 95 (44%) participants were female and 122 (56%) were male. During a median follow-up of 4·7 years (3·5-6·4) for patients with a history of stroke, a first primary outcome event occurred in 18 (16%) of 110 patients in the early rhythm-control group (3·7 per 100 person-years) and 33 (31%) of 107 in the usual care group (7·4 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·52, 95% CI 0·29-0·93). The mean number of nights spent in hospital per year was 5·1 (SD 13·2) for patients with a history of stroke assigned to early rhythm control and 6·6 (10·1) for those assigned to usual care (incidence rate ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·55-1·38). Among patients with a history of stroke, primary safety events occurred in 17 (15%) patients in the early rhythm-control group versus 30 (28%) in the usual care group., Interpretation: In this prespecified subgroup analysis in patients with recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation and a history of stroke, the effects of early rhythm control were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. As the evidence from this subgroup analysis is considered supportive and exploratory, further research is needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of this approach in patients with a history of stroke., Funding: German Ministry of Education and Research, German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Atrial Fibrillation Network (AFNET), European Heart Rhythm Association, St Jude Medical-Abbott, Sanofi, and the German Heart Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests H-CD reports personal fees from Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Portola, and WebMD Global; received financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim for stroke research projects; and received research grants from the German Research Council and German Ministry of Education and Research. GT reports personal fees from Acandis, Alexion, Amarin, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Stryker. LF received institutional research grants and non-financial support from the European Union Horizon 2020 MAESTRIA (ID 965286), German Research Council, British Heart Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and several biomedical companies (ie, Roche, Preventicus, and Daichii-Sankyo) in the field of cardiovascular diseases, including detection and treatment of heart failure, arrhythmias, and atrial fibrillation through academic institutions. LF and PK are listed as inventors of two patents held by the University of Birmingham (atrial fibrillation therapy WO 2015140571 and markers for atrial fibrillation WO 2016012783). AG reports personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Pfizer), Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Sanofi, Omeicos, Viofor Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. KGH reports personal fees or study grants (or both) from Abbott, Amarin, Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, Sanofi, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Medronic, Pfizer, Portola, SUN Pharma, WL Gore and Associates, and Edwards Lifesciences. PK reports grants and non-financial support from BMBF (German Ministry of Education and Research) and the European Heart Rhythm Association; grants from Sanofi, Abbott, German Heart Foundation, DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), the European Union, British Heart Foundation, Leducq Foundation, Medical Research Council UK; and non-financial support from the German Centre for Heart Research. RBS reports lecture fees and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (Pfizer). AS, KW, and AZ report institutional payments from AFNET, Biotronic, and Resmed. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background:  There is no clear consensus on whether aspirin offers better outcomes in terms of secondary cardiovascular disease prevention compared with clopidogrel., Objective:  The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with established cardiovascular disease., Methods:  A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases (last search date: August 28, 2021) was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement for randomized control trials (RCTs) of clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy in patients with established cardiovascular disease. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed., Results:  Five RCTs incorporating 26,855 patients (clopidogrel: 13,426; aspirin: 13,429) were included. No statistically significant difference was observed between clopidogrel and aspirin in terms of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.01 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.91-1.13]; p  = 0.83), ischemic stroke (OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.71-1.06]; p  = 0.16), and major bleeding rates (OR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.56-1.06]; p  = 0.11). Patients receiving clopidogrel had borderline lower risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71-1.00]; p  = 0.05) and lower risk for nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.71-0.97]; p  = 0.02, relative risk reduction = 16.9%, absolute risk reduction = 0.5%, number needed to treat = 217 for a mean period of 20 months) compared with patients receiving aspirin., Conclusion:  In patients with established cardiovascular disease, clopidogrel was associated with a 17% relative-risk reduction for nonfatal MI, borderline decreased risk for MACE, and similar risk for all-cause mortality, stroke, and major bleeding compared with aspirin., Protocol Registration:  PROSPERO CRD42021283866., Competing Interests: G.N. discloses speaker fees/Advisory Boards/Research support from Abbott; Amgen; Bayer; BMS/Pfizer; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Elpen; Galenica; and Sanofi. Hans C.D. received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Portola, and WebMD Global. Boehringer Ingelheim provided financial support for research projects. H.C.D. received research grants from the German Research Council (DFG), German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), European Union, NIH, Bertelsmann Foundation, and Heinz-Nixdorf Foundation. Hans H.C.D.er was the German PI in the CAPRIE trial. The other authors report no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with coronary artery disease and concomitant asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis, combined simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been widely performed despite lack of evidence from randomized trials. We recently showed that the risk of stroke or death within 30 days was higher following CABG+CEA compared with CABG alone. Here, we report long-term outcomes following CABG with versus without CEA., Methods: The CABACS (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Study) is a randomized, controlled, multicenter, open trial. Patients with asymptomatic severe (≥70%) carotid stenosis undergoing CABG were allocated either CABG+CEA or CABG alone, and follow-up was 5 years. Major secondary end points included nonfatal stroke or death, any death and any nonfatal stroke. Due to low recruitment, the study was stopped prematurely after randomization of 127 patients in 17 centers., Results: By 5 years, the rate of stroke or death did not significantly differ between groups (CABG+CEA 40.6% [95% CI, 0.285-0.536], CABG alone 35.0% [95% CI, 0.231-0.484]; P =0.58). Higher albeit statistically nonsignificant rates of nonfatal strokes occurred at any time following CABG+CEA versus CABG alone (1 year: 19.3% versus 7.1%, P =0.09; 5 years: 29.4% versus 18.8%, P =0.25). All-cause mortality up to 5 years was similar in both groups (CABG+CEA: 25.4% versus CABG alone: 23.3%, hazard ratio, 1.148 [95% CI, 0.560-2.353]; P =0.71). Subgroup analyses did not reveal any significant effect of age, sex, preoperative modified Rankin Scale and center on outcome events., Conclusions: During 5-years follow-up, combined simultaneous CABG+CEA was associated with a higher albeit statistically nonsignificant rate of stroke or death compared with CABG alone. This was mainly due to a nonsignificantly higher perioperative risk following CABG+CEA. Since the power of our study was not sufficient, no significant effect of either procedure could be observed at any time during follow-up., Registration: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN13486906.

Objective: To assess baseline characteristics and antithrombotic treatment (ATT) prescription patterns in patients enrolled in the third phase of the GLORIA-AF Registry Program, evaluate predictors of treatment prescription, and compare results with phase II., Methods: GLORIA-AF is a large, global, prospective registry program, enrolling patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) at risk of stroke. Patients receiving dabigatran were followed for two years in phase II, and all patients were followed for 3 years in phase III. Phase II started when dabigatran became available; phase III started when the characteristics of patients receiving dabigatran became roughly comparable with those receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)., Results: Between 2014 and 2016, 21,241 patients were enrolled in phase III. In total, 82% of patients were prescribed oral anticoagulation ([OAC]; 59.5% novel/nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants [NOACs], 22.7% VKAs). A further 11% of patients were prescribed antiplatelets without OAC and 7% were prescribed no ATT. A high stroke risk was the main driver of OAC prescription. Factors associated with prescription of VKA over NOAC included type of site, region, physician specialty, and impaired kidney function., Conclusion: Over the past few years, data from phase III of GLORIA-AF show that OACs have become the standard treatment option, with most newly diagnosed AF patients prescribed a NOAC. However, in some regions a remarkable proportion of patients remain undertreated. In comparison with phase II, more patients received NOACs in phase III while the prescription of VKA decreased. VKAs were preferred over NOACs in patients with impaired kidney function., Competing Interests: L Beier declares no conflicts of interest at the time of manuscript writing and is now an employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH. S Lu was an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim at the time of manuscript writing and is now employed by Biogen Inc. S Marler, C Teutsch, K Zint, L Baker and M Paquette are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. L Riou França was an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim at the time of manuscript writing and is now employed by Sanofi-Aventis. GYH Lip is a consultant and speaker for BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo. No fees are received personally. MV Huisman reports grants from ZonMW Dutch Healthcare Fund, grants and fees to the hospital from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer-BMS, Bayer HealthCare, Aspen, Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. JL Halperin has engaged in consulting activities with Boehringer Ingelheim, for advisory activities involving anticoagulants, and he is a member of the Executive Steering Committee of the GLORIA-AF Registry. H-C Diener has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott, Bayer Vital, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portola, Sanofi-Aventis, and WebMD Global. Financial support for research projects was provided by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Diener chairs the Treatment Guidelines Committee of the German Society of Neurology and contributed to the EHRA and ESC guidelines for the treatment of AF. C-S Ma has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer. DB Bartels was an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim at time of manuscript writing and is now an employee at UCB Pharma GmbH. SJ Dubner has received consultancy fees for serving as a steering committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim; he also holds research grants from St Jude Medical. P Lyrer has received honoraria for contribution to advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Bayer, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Ricordati, and research grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss National Foundation, Bayer, Sanofi, Acticor, and the University Hospital Basel foundation (propatient). J Senges has received honoraria for contribution to advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim. KJ Rothman declares no conflicts of interest.

Background: Individuals with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) have a high early risk of ischemic stroke despite dual antiplatelet therapy. The risk of ischemic stroke, and associated disability, represents a significant unmet clinical need. Genetic variants resulting in reduced factor XI levels are associated with reduced risk for ischemic stroke but are not associated with increased intracranial bleeding. Milvexian is an oral small-molecule inhibitor of FXIa that binds activated factor XI with high affinity and selectivity and may reduce the risk of stroke when added to antiplatelet drugs without significant bleeding. We aimed to evaluate the dose-response relationship of milvexian in participants treated with dual antiplatelets., Methods: We began a phase II, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial at 367 sites in 2019. Participants (N = 2366) with ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤7) or high-risk TIA (ABCD 2 score ≥6) were randomized to 1 of 5 doses of milvexian or placebo for 90 days. Participants also received clopidogrel 75 mg daily for the first 21 days and aspirin 100 mg for 90 days. The efficacy endpoint was the composite of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on magnetic resonance imaging. Major bleeding, defined as type 3 or 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, was the safety endpoint. Participant follow-up will end in 2022., Conclusion: The AXIOMATIC-SSP trial will evaluate the dose-response of milvexian for ischemic stroke occurrence in participants with ischemic stroke or TIA., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This propensity-score matched study investigated clinical outcomes associated with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) versus direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) in patients with AF and prior ischemic stroke., Methods: AF patients enrolled in the Amulet Observational Study with a history of ischemic stroke and successful LAAO (n = 299) were compared with a propensity-score matched cohort of incident AF patients with prior ischemic stroke and treated by DOAC (n = 301). The control cohort was identified through the Danish National Patient Registries. Propensity score matching was based on covariates of the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores, with a 1:2 ratio and using Greedy 5:1 digit matching with replacement. The analysis included 2-years follow-up, with a primary composite outcome of ischemic stroke, major bleeding (BARC ≥ 3) or all-cause mortality., Results: Mean (SD) CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores were 5.26 (1.42) and 5.40 (1.31) and HAS-BLED scores were 3.95 (0.91) and 4.03 (0.96), for the LAAO and DOAC group, respectively. Total number of primary composite outcome events were 61 (12.4 events/100 patient-years) and 117 (26.9 events/100 patient-years) in the LAAO and DOAC group, respectively. Risk of the primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the LAAO group, hazard rate ratio [HR] 0.48 (95% CI: 0.35-0.65). Ischemic stroke risk was comparable, HR 0.71 (95% CI: 0.34-1.45), while risk of major bleeding, HR 0.41 (95% CI: 0.25-0.67), and all-cause mortality, HR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.32-0.71), were significantly lower with LAAO. Cardiovascular mortality did not differ statistically between the LAAO and DOAC group, HR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.39-1.42). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: This study indicated significantly lower risk of the composite outcome of stroke, major bleeding and all-cause mortality with LAAO therapy compared to DOAC, in patients with AF and prior stroke. The stroke prevention effectiveness appeared similar, with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding events with LAAO. The suggested clinical benefit of LAAO over DOAC require confirmation in the ongoing randomized OCCLUSION-AF trial., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Ischaemic strokes have traditionally been classified according to the TOAST criteria, in which strokes with unclear aetiology are classified as cryptogenic strokes. However, the definition of cryptogenic stroke did not meet the operational criteria necessary to define patient populations for randomized treatment trials. To address this problem, the concept of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) was developed and published in 2014. A hypothesis that underpinned this concept was that most strokes in patients with ESUS are caused by embolic events, perhaps many cardioembolic, and that anticoagulation would prevent secondary ischaemic events. On this basis, two large randomized trials were conducted to compare the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran and rivaroxaban with aspirin. Neither NOAC was superior to aspirin in these trials, although subgroups of patients with ESUS seemed to benefit specifically from anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy. The neutral results of the trials of anticoagulation and insights into ESUS from research conducted since the concept was introduced warrant reassessment of the ESUS construct as a research concept and a treatment target. In this Review, we discuss the evidence produced since the concept of ESUS was introduced, and propose updates to the criteria and diagnostic algorithm in light of the latest knowledge., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Whether thrombectomy alone is equally as effective as intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy remains controversial. We aimed to determine whether thrombectomy alone would be non-inferior to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, blinded-outcome trial in Europe and Canada, we recruited patients with stroke due to large vessel occlusion confirmed with CT or magnetic resonance angiography admitted to endovascular centres. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised web server using a deterministic minimisation method to receive stent-retriever thrombectomy alone or intravenous alteplase plus stent-retriever thrombectomy. In both groups, thrombectomy was initiated as fast as possible with any commercially available Solitaire stent-retriever revascularisation device (Medtronic, Irvine, CA, USA). In the combined treatment group, intravenous alteplase (0·9 mg/kg bodyweight, maximum dose 90 mg per patient) was administered as early as possible after randomisation for 60 min with 10% of the calculated dose given as an initial bolus. Personnel assessing the primary outcome were masked to group allocation; patients and treating physicians were not. The primary binary outcome was a score of 2 or less on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days. We assessed the non-inferiority of thrombectomy alone versus intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in all randomly assigned and consenting patients using the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit of the Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 12%. The main safety endpoint was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage assessed in all randomly assigned and consenting participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03192332, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between Nov 29, 2017, and May 7, 2021, 5215 patients were screened and 423 were randomly assigned, of whom 408 (201 thrombectomy alone, 207 intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy) were included in the primary efficacy analysis. A modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days was reached by 114 (57%) of 201 patients assigned to thrombectomy alone and 135 (65%) of 207 patients assigned to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy (adjusted risk difference -7·3%, 95% CI -16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI -15·1%, crossing the non-inferiority margin of -12%). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in five (2%) of 201 patients undergoing thrombectomy alone and seven (3%) of 202 patients receiving intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy (risk difference -1·0%, 95% CI -4·8 to 2·7). Successful reperfusion was less common in patients assigned to thrombectomy alone (182 [91%] of 201 vs 199 [96%] of 207, risk difference -5·1%, 95% CI -10·2 to 0·0, p=0·047)., Interpretation: Thrombectomy alone was not shown to be non-inferior to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy and resulted in decreased reperfusion rates. These results do not support omitting intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy in eligible patients., Funding: Medtronic and University Hospital Bern., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests UF reports financial support for the present study from Medtronic; research grants from Medtronic BEYOND SWIFT registry, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the Swiss Heart Foundation; consulting fees from Medtronic, Stryker, and CSL Behring (fees paid to institution); has membership of a data safety monitoring board for the IN EXTREMIS trial and the TITAN trial; was on the advisory board for Portola (Alexion; fees paid to institution); and is Vice President of the Swiss Neurological Society. JK reports financial support from Medtronic for the BEYOND SWIFT registry (fees paid to institution); and research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation supporting the TECNO trial (fees paid to institution), Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences supporting MRI research (fees paid to institution), and Swiss Heart Foundation supporting cardiac MRI in the aetiological work-up of stroke patients (fees paid to institution). CC reports consulting fees from Medtronic. PMo reports research funding (fees paid to institution) from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and Medtronic. GM reports consulting fees from Stryker Neurovascular; and was paid for lectures for Medtronic and Microvention Europe. IS reports consulting fees from Sanofi Synthé-Labo, Servier, Boheringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novonordisk, and Medtronic; and payment or honoraria from Sanofi Synthé-Labo, Medtronic, Boheringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and BMS—Pfizer. ON reports funding from a Stryker Research grant; and payment or honoraria for lectures for Phenox and Stryker. MR reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Stryker, Cerenovus, Philips, and Apta Targets; payment or honoraria from Ischemia View; participates on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board of Sensome; and has stock or stock options in Anaconda Biomed, CVAid, and Methinks. EC reports grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation and Swiss National Science Foundation, not related to the present study. ARL reports grants from the University of Zurich, the LOOP Zurich, and P&K Pühringer Foundation; consulting fees from Bayer; and a lecture honorarium from Moleac Pte, Singapore. WP reports grants from the German Research Foundation, LOEWE (research funding of the federal state of Hesse); royalties or licenses from the Stroke Team Training (Laerdal Medical); payment or honoraria from Laerdal Medical, Alexion, Pfizer—BMS, and Stryker Neurovascular; and support for attending meetings or travel from Laerdal Medical, Alexion, Pfizer—BMS, and Stryker Neurovascular. MA reports honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Covidien, Medtronic, and Sanofi; and participates on scientific advisory boards of Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, and Pfizer. AHS reports being a coinvestigator for the US National Institutes of Health (1R01EB030092-01); is mentor for the Carol W Harvey Chair of Research and Sharon Epperson Chair of Research at the Brain Aneurysm Foundation; receipt of consulting fees from Amnis Therapeutics, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Cardinal Health 200, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Cerenovus, Cerevatech Medical, Cordis, Corindus, Endostream Medical, Imperative Care, InspireMD, Integra, IRRAS AB, Medtronic, MicroVention, Minnetronix Neuro, Peijia Medical, Penumbra, Q’Apel Medical, Rapid Medical, Serenity Medical, Silk Road Medical, StimMed, Stryker Neurovascular, Three Rivers Medical, VasSol, and Viz.ai; is Secretary of the Board of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2020–2021 (unpaid); is Chair of the Cerebrovascular Section of the AANS/CNS 2020–2021 (unpaid); has stock or stock options in Adona Medical, Amnis Therapeutics, Bend IT Technologies, BlinkTBI, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Cerevatech Medical, Cognition Medical, CVAID, E8, Endostream Medical, Galaxy Therapeutics, Imperative Care, InspireMD, Instylla, International Medical Distribution Partners, Launch NY, NeuroRadial Technologies, NeuroTechnology Investors, Neurovascular Diagnostics, Peijia Medical, PerFlow Medical, Q’Apel Medical, QAS.ai, Radical Catheter Technologies, Rebound Therapeutics (purchased 2019 by Integra Lifesciences), Rist Neurovascular, (purchased 2020 by Medtronic), Sense Diagnostics, Serenity Medical, Silk Road Medical, Sim & Cure, SongBird Therapy, Spinnaker Medical, StimMed, Synchron, Three Rivers Medical, Truvic Medical, Tulavi Therapeutics, Vastrax, VICIS, and Viseon; and other financial or non-financial interests: national principal investigator or steering committees for Cerenovus EXCELLENT and ARISE II Trial; Medtronic SWIFT PRIME, VANTAGE, EMBOLISE and SWIFT DIRECT Trials; MicroVention FRED Trial and CONFIDENCE Study; MUSC POSITIVE Trial; Penumbra 3D Separator Trial, COMPASS Trial, INVEST Trial, MIVI neuroscience EVAQ Trial; Rapid Medical SUCCESS Trial; and InspireMD C-GUARDIANS IDE Pivotal Trial. MTF reports research grants from Medtronic, Siemens, Genentech, Idorsia, and Vesalio; consulting fees from Genentech, Balt USA, CereNovus, and Oculus Imaging; and participates on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Balt USA, Jacobs Institute, and Imperative Care. MW reports a grant from Stryker Neurovascular; consulting fees from Stryker Neurovascular; payment or honoraria from Stryker Neurovascular and Bracco Imaging; is board member for the German Society of Neuroradiology (no payments); and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Ab medica, Acandis, Bracco Imaging, Cerenovus, Kaneka Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Mentice, Phenox, and Stryker Neurovascular (support to institution). PMa reports grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation; consulting fees from Medtronic and Stryker; payment or honoraria from Medtronic and Stryker; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board of MicroVention. H-CD reports honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from Abbott, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Portola, and WebMD Global; financial support for research projects from Boehringer Ingelheim; received research grants from the German Research Council and German Ministry of Education and Research; serves as Editor of Neurologie up2date, InFo Neurologie & Psychiatrie, Arzneimitteltherapie, and coeditor of Cephalalgia; and is on the editorial board of The Lancet Neurology and Drugs. MM reports payment or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim. DSL reports consulting fees from Cerenovus, Genentech, Medtronic, Stryker, and Rapid Medical as imaging core laboratory. JLS reports funding for the present study from Medtronic; consulting fees from Cerenovus; participates on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MIVI and Phillips; and has stock or stock options in Rapid Medical. JG reports a Swiss National Funds grant for MRI in stroke. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods: In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest., Results: The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79-2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40-0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40-1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67-1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76-1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48-1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63-1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79-1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52-1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63-1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14-2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80-1.19)., Conclusions: Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Intravascular thrombus formation and embolization are among the most frequent events leading to a number of cardiovascular conditions with high morbidity and mortality. The underlying causes are stasis of the circulating blood, genetic and acquired coagulation disorders, and reduced antithrombotic or prothrombotic properties of the vascular wall (Virchow's triad). In the venous system, intravascular thrombi can cause venous thrombosis and pulmonary and even peripheral embolism including ischaemic stroke [through a patent foramen ovale (PFO)]. Thrombi in the left atrium and its appendage or ventricle form in the context of atrial fibrillation and infarction, respectively. Furthermore, thrombi can form on native or prosthetic aortic valves, within the aorta (in particular at sites of ulcers, aortic dissection, and abdominal aneurysms), and in cerebral and peripheral arteries causing stroke and critical limb ischaemia, respectively. Finally, thrombotic occlusion may occur in arteries supplying vital organs such the heart, brain, kidney, and extremities. Thrombus formation and embolization can be managed with anticoagulants and devices depending on where they form and embolize and on patient characteristics. Vitamin K antagonists are preferred in patients with mechanical valves, while novel oral anticoagulants are first choice in most other cardiovascular conditions, in particular venous thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation. As anticoagulants are associated with a risk of bleeding, devices such as occluders of a PFO or the left atrial appendage are preferred in patients with an increased bleeding risk. Platelet inhibitors such as aspirin and/or P2Y12 antagonists are preferred in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral artery disease either alone or in combination depending on the clinical condition. A differential and personalized use of anticoagulants, platelet inhibitors, and devices is recommended and reviewed in this article., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The effect of different anticoagulants on recanalization after cerebral venous thrombosis has not been studied in a randomized controlled trial., Methods: RE-SPECT CVT (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02913326) was a Phase III, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter, exploratory trial with blinded endpoint adjudication. Acute cerebral venous thrombosis patients were allocated to dabigatran 150 mg twice daily, or dose-adjusted warfarin, for 24 weeks, after 5-15 days' treatment with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin. A standardized magnetic resonance protocol including arterial spin labeling, three-dimensional time-of-flight venography, and three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography was obtained at the end of the treatment period. Cerebral venous recanalization at six months was assessed by two blinded adjudicators, using the difference in a score of occluded sinuses and veins (predefined secondary efficacy endpoint) and in the modified Qureshi scale (additional endpoint), between baseline and the end of the treatment., Results: Of 120 cerebral venous thrombosis patients randomized, venous recanalization could be evaluated in 108 (55 allocated to dabigatran and 53 to warfarin, 1 patient had a missing occlusion score at baseline). No patient worsened in the score of occluded cerebral veins and sinuses, while 33 (60%) on dabigatran and 35 (67%) on warfarin improved. The mean score change from baseline in the occlusion score was similar in the two treatment groups (dabigatran -0.8, SD 0.78; warfarin -1.0, SD 0.92). In the modified Qureshi score, full recanalization was adjudicated in 24 (44%) and 19 (36%), and partial recanalization in 23 (42%) and 26 (49%) patients in the dabigatran and warfarin arms, respectively. No statistically significant treatment difference in the modified Qureshi score could be detected ( p  = 0.44)., Conclusion: The majority of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, anticoagulated with either dabigatran or warfarin for six months, showed partial or complete recanalization of occluded sinuses and veins at the end of the treatment. Clinical trial registration: Trial registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Registration number: NCT02913326.

Background: Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device., Methods: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points., Results: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=-0.14 [95% CI, -3.42 to 3.13]; P <0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, -1.55 to 1.55]; P <0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=-2.12 [95% CI, -4.45 to 0.21]; P <0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=-0.71 [95% CI, -3.72 to 2.31]; P =0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41-3.66]; P <0.001 for noninferiority; P =0.003 for superiority)., Conclusions: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02879448.

Background: Major bleeding (MB) events are independent predictors of mortality after cardiac interventional procedures. The clinical relevance of MB following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) remains unclear., Aims: This study aimed to investigate the incidence and clinical impact of MB after LAAO in a real-world population at high risk for bleeding and contraindicated to anticoagulation., Methods: The two-year results of the Amplatzer Amulet Observational Post-Market Study were analysed. An independent committee adjudicated MBs according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale. Cox proportional hazards regression identified variables associated with MB events and mortality., Results: The MB rate was 7.2%/year, with a rate of 10.1%/year during year one, decreasing to 4.0%/year over year two. The most common bleeding location was gastrointestinal, accounting for 48% of MBs. Pre-LAAO MB was associated with an increased risk for post-LAAO MB (HR 2.34, 95% CI: 1.37-3.99). The occurrence of post-LAAO MB was associated with increased mortality (37.3% vs 12.7%; p<0.0001), driven mainly by events occurring beyond the periprocedural period. The annualised rate of ischaemic stroke or TIA was similar in patients with and without MB (2.3% vs 3.3%; p=0.446). MB post LAAO was a strong independent predictor of mortality (HR 3.07, 95% CI: 2.15-4.40)., Conclusions: In real-world patients at high bleeding risk, MB following LAAO was not uncommon and associated with a significant increase in mortality, without increasing the risk of stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02447081. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02447081.

Background: Vascular prevention trials typically use dichotomous event outcomes although this may be inefficient statistically and gives no indication of event severity. We assessed whether ordinal outcomes would be more efficient and how to best analyse them., Methods: Chief investigators of vascular prevention randomised controlled trials that showed evidence of either benefit or harm, or were included in a systematic review that overall showed benefit or harm, shared individual participant data from their trials. Ordered categorical versions of vascular event outcomes (such as stroke and myocardial infarction) were analysed using 15 statistical techniques and their results then ranked, with the result with the smallest p-value given the smallest rank. Friedman and Duncan's multiple range tests were performed to assess differences between tests by comparing the average ranks for each statistical test., Results: Data from 35 trials (254,223 participants) were shared with the collaboration. 13 trials had more than two treatment arms, resulting in 59 comparisons. Analysis approaches (Mann Whitney U, ordinal logistic regression, multiple regression, bootstrapping) that used ordinal outcome data had a smaller average rank and therefore appeared to be more efficient statistically than those that analysed the original binary outcomes., Conclusions: Ordinal vascular outcome measures appear to be more efficient statistically than binary outcomes and provide information on the severity of event. We suggest a potential role for using ordinal outcomes in vascular prevention trials., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background and Purpose: Lifelong treatment with antiplatelet drugs is recommended following a transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke. Bleeding complications may offset the benefit of antiplatelet drugs in patients at increased risk of bleeding and low risk of recurrent ischemic events. We aimed to investigate the net benefit of antiplatelet treatment according to an individuals’ bleeding risk., Methods: We pooled individual patient data from 6 randomized clinical trials (CAPRIE [Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischemic Events], ESPS-2 [European Stroke Prevention Study-2], MATCH [Management of Atherothrombosis With Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients], CHARISMA [Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance], ESPRIT [European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischemia Trial], and PRoFESS [Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes]) investigating antiplatelet therapy in the subacute or chronic phase after noncardioembolic transient ischemic attack or stroke. Patients were stratified into quintiles according to their predicted risk of major bleeding with the S2TOP-BLEED score. The annual risk of major bleeding and recurrent ischemic events was assessed per quintile for 4 scenarios: (1) aspirin monotherapy, (2) aspirin-clopidogrel versus aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy, (3) aspirin-dipyridamole versus clopidogrel, and (4) aspirin versus clopidogrel. Net benefit was calculated for the second, third, and fourth scenario., Results: Thirty seven thousand eighty-seven patients were included in the analyses. Both risk of major bleeding and recurrent ischemic events increased over quintiles of predicted bleeding risk, but risk of ischemic events was consistently higher (eg, from 0.7%/y (bottom quintile) to 3.2%/y (top quintile) for major bleeding on aspirin and from 2.5%/y to 10.2%/y for risk of ischemic events on aspirin). Treatment with aspirin-clopidogrel led to more major bleedings (0.9%–1.7% per year), than reduction in ischemic events (ranging from 0.4% to 0.9/1.0% per year) across all quintiles. There was no clear preference for either aspirin-dipyridamole or clopidogrel according to baseline bleeding risk., Conclusions: Among patients with a transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke included in clinical trials of antiplatelet therapy, the risk of recurrent ischemic events and of major bleeding increase in parallel. Antiplatelet treatment cannot be individualized solely based on bleeding risk assessment.

Background: Prospective data on nonvitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) management during cardiovascular interventions are limited. We therefore evaluated the safety and effectiveness of uninterrupted dabigatran therapy as well as dabigatran management during atrial fibrillation (AF)-cardioversions, AF-ablations, pacemaker implantations and coronary angiography and/or stenting procedures., Method: GLORIA-AF is an international registry programme involving patients with newly diagnosed AF. Dabigatran users were followed for ≤2 years. The primary outcome was occurrence of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding ≤8 weeks after a cardiovascular intervention during uninterrupted dabigatran therapy., Results: During the 2-year follow-up, 599 cardiovascular interventions were identified in 479 eligible patients. 412/599 (69%) interventions were performed with uninterrupted dabigatran therapy: 299/354 (84%) AF-cardioversions, 38/89 (43%) AF-ablations, 25/58 (43%) pacemaker implantations, and 50/98 (51%) coronary angiography and/or stenting procedures. During an average follow-up of 8.4 weeks after intervention, one major bleed and one systemic embolic event occurred (risk 0.25% for both outcomes; 95% confidence interval, 0.01%-1.36%)., Conclusions: More than two thirds of the interventions were performed with uninterrupted dabigatran therapy, of which most were AF-cardioversions. Uninterrupted dabigatran therapy was associated with low major bleeding and stroke/systemic embolism risk, supporting the favourable safety and effectiveness profile of dabigatran in clinical practice-based settings., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: To develop a consensus statement for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in Asian-Pacific patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at risk of ischemic stroke. The need for such a region-specific consensus was indicated by the relative paucity of clinical evidence for LAAO and oral anticoagulation therapy obtained in Asian-Pacific populations and the specific stroke and bleeding characteristics of this population., Methods: Consensus was developed by discussion and evaluation of available evidence and expert opinions during a 2-day meeting attended by clinical experts from the Asian-Pacific regions., Results: The consensus statement arrived at provides recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions regarding LAAO in Asian-Pacific patients. Gaps in the evidence and other areas requiring further research were identified., Conclusion: LAAO is an alternative device-based therapy in carefully selected patients with NVAF at risk of ischemic stroke. However, evidence for LAAO is primarily obtained from Caucasian populations, and data on LAAO in Asian-Pacific patients are scarce. While the present consensus statement addresses several therapy-related aspects based on careful interpretation of available evidence and expert opinions, other areas require additional evidence derived from Asian-Pacific populations., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Stroke is one of the main causes of mortality and permanent disability. Secondary prevention of stroke recurrence therefore has a high priority. Secondary prevention of ischemic stroke includes optimization of the lifestyle and diet, treatment of risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia, prophylaxis of recurrence with antiplatelet treatment in patients with high vascular risk and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. In addition, secondary prevention includes carotid surgery or stenting in selected symptomatic patients and closure of a patent foramen ovale after cryptogenic stroke.

Objectives: To discuss headache secondary to cerebrovascular disease., Background: Headache is an important symptom in cerebrovascular diseases. In some conditions, headache is the leading symptom. Migraine is associated with an increased risk of stroke., Methods: The authors undertook a literature search for the terms "headache" and "cerebrovascular diseases"., Results: We report studies on headache in subarachnoidal hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, TIA, basilar artery thrombosis, cervical artery dissection, cerebellar stroke, arteritis and cerebral sinus venous thrombosis. In addition, we discuss migraine and stroke and thunderclap headache., Conclusions: Headache is a leading symptom in many cerebrovascular diseases. Headache in combination with focal neurological deficits requires immediate diagnosis and treatment.

Aim: The SAMe-TT 2 R 2 score helps identify patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) likely to have poor anticoagulation control during anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and those with scores >2 might be better managed with a target-specific oral anticoagulant (NOAC). We hypothesized that in clinical practice, VKAs may be prescribed less frequently to patients with AF and SAMe-TT 2 R 2 scores >2 than to patients with lower scores., Methods and Results: We analyzed the Phase III dataset of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF), a large, global, prospective global registry of patients with newly diagnosed AF and ≥1 stroke risk factor. We compared baseline clinical characteristics and antithrombotic prescriptions to determine the probability of the VKA prescription among anticoagulated patients with the baseline SAMe-TT 2 R 2 score >2 and ≤ 2. Among 17,465 anticoagulated patients with AF, 4,828 (27.6%) patients were prescribed VKA and 12,637 (72.4%) patients an NOAC: 11,884 (68.0%) patients had SAMe-TT 2 R 2 scores 0-2 and 5,581 (32.0%) patients had scores >2. The proportion of patients prescribed VKA was 28.0% among patients with SAMe-TT 2 R 2 scores >2 and 27.5% in those with scores ≤2., Conclusions: The lack of a clear association between the SAMe-TT 2 R 2 score and anticoagulant selection may be attributed to the relative efficacy and safety profiles between NOACs and VKAs as well as to the absence of trial evidence that an SAMe-TT 2 R 2 -guided strategy for the selection of the type of anticoagulation in NVAF patients has an impact on clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety. The latter hypothesis is currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov//Unique identifier: NCT01937377, NCT01468701, and NCT01671007., Competing Interests: Disclosures George Ntaios: Speaker fees/Advisory Boards/Research support from Amgen; Bayer; BMS/Pfizer; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Elpen; Galenica; Sanofi; and Winmedica. The authors did not receive any fees directly or personally. Menno V. Huisman: Grants from ZonMW Dutch Healthcare Fund; grants and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer-BMS, Bayer Health Care, Aspen, Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. Hans-Christoph Diener: Received honoraria for participation in clinical trials; contribution to advisory boards or oral presentations from: Abbott, Bayer Vital, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portola, Sanofi-Aventis, and WebMD Global. Financial support for research projects was provided by Boehringer Ingelheim. Chairs the Treatment Guidelines Committee of the German Society of Neurology and contributed to the EHRA and ESC guidelines for the treatment of AF. Jonathan L. Halperin: Consulting activities with Boehringer Ingelheim, for advisory activities involving anticoagulants, and he is a member of the Executive Steering Committee of the GLORIA-AF Registry. Christine Teutsch; Sabrina Marler; Venkatesh K. Gurusamy; and Milla Thompson: are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. Gregory Y. H. Lip: Consultant for Bayer/Janssen, BMS/Pfizer, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Verseon, and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has been a speaker for Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo. The authors did not receive any fees directly or personally. Brian Olshansky: Consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Lundbeck; and has served as DSMB Chair for Amarin (REDUCE IT Trial)., (Copyright © 2020 Hellenic Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) Scientific Initiatives Committee performed a global survey to evaluate the current practice for the assessment and management of patients with suspected patent foramen ovale (PFO) and cryptogenic stroke., Methods and Results: In total, 79 imaging centres from 34 countries across the world responded to the survey, which comprised 17 questions. Most non-invasive investigations for PFO were widely available in the responding centres, with the exception of transcranial colour Doppler which was only available in 70% of sites, and most commonly performed by neurologists. Standard transthoracic echocardiography, with or without bubbles, was considered the first-level test for suspected PFO in the majority of the centres, whereas transoesophageal echocardiography was an excellent second-level modality. Most centres would rule out atrial fibrillation (AF) as a source of embolism in all patients with cryptogenic stroke (63%), with the remainder reserving investigation for patients with multiple AF risk factors (33%). Cardiac magnetic resonance was the preferred tool for identifying other unusual aetiologies, like cardiac masses or thrombi. After PFO closure, there was variation in the use of antiplatelet therapy: a quarter recommended treatment for life, while only 12% recommended 5 years as stipulated in the guidelines (12%). Antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental or endoscopic procedures was not recommended in 41% of centres, contrary to what the guidelines recommended., Conclusion: Our survey revealed a variable adherence to the current recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO. Efforts should focus on optimizing and standardizing diagnostic tests and treatment of this condition., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Recently published long-term data from randomized controlled trials have provided evidence for the prevention of recurrent embolic stroke of undetermined source by percutaneous closure of the patent foramen ovale. However, most data were obtained from Caucasian populations and evidence on patent foramen ovale closure in Asian-Pacific patients is limited. The relative paucity in clinical data from this population, as well as the fact that Asian-Pacific patients may have higher bleeding risks than Caucasians, complicates clinical decision-making. This document, resulting from a consensus meeting of Asian-Pacific clinical experts, states the consensus among these experts about how to treat Asian-Pacific patients who had an embolic stroke of undetermined source and have a patent foramen ovale, based on currently available evidence and expert opinions. In addition, uncertainties and the need for clinical data regarding patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of recurrent embolic stroke of undetermined source in general, and specifically for Asian-Pacific patients, are identified.

Aims: This study aimed to describe baseline characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at risk of stroke with and without history of heart failure (HF) and report 2-year outcomes in the dabigatran-treated subset of a prospective, global, observational study (GLORIA-AF)., Methods and Results: Newly diagnosed patients with AF and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 1 were consecutively enrolled. Baseline characteristics were assessed by the presence or absence of HF diagnosis at enrolment. Incidence rates for outcomes in dabigatran-treated patients were estimated with and without standardization by stroke (excluding HF component) and bleeding risk scores. A total of 15 308 eligible patients were enrolled, including 15 154 with known HF status; of these, 3679 (24.0%) had been diagnosed with HF, 11 475 (75.0%) had not. Among 4873 dabigatran-treated patients, 1169 (24.0%) had HF, and 3658 (75.1%) did not; the risk of stroke was high (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 2) for 94.3% of patients with HF and 85.8% without, while 6.0% and 7.0%, respectively, had a high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED ≥ 3). Incidence rates of all-cause death in dabigatran-treated patients with and without HF, standardized for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores, were 4.76 vs. 1.80 per 100 patient years (py), with roughly comparable rates of stroke (0.82 vs. 0.60 per 100 py) and major bleeding (1.20 vs. 0.92 per 100 py)., Conclusions: Patients with AF and history of HF may have greater disease burden at AF diagnosis and increased mortality rates vs. patients without HF. Stroke and major bleeding rates were roughly comparable between groups confirming the long-term safety and effectiveness of dabigatran in patients with HF., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ occluder., Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation eligible for LAAO were recruited to a prospective global study. Implant procedures were undertaken with echocardiographic guidance. Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) was undertaken 1-3 months post-LAAO. Implant and follow-up TOEs were evaluated by a CoreLab. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischaemic stroke and cardiovascular death at 2 years. Serious adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. A total of 1088 patients were enrolled, aged 75.2 ± 8.5 years; 64.5% were male. CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.2 ± 1.6 and 3.3 ± 1.1, respectively. A total of 71.7% had prior major bleeding, and 82.8% had contraindications to oral anticoagulants. Implant success was 99.1%. Major adverse events (≤7 days post-procedure) occurred in 4.0%, including death (0.3%), stroke (0.4%), major vascular (1.3%), and device embolization (0.2%). A total of 80.2% of patients were discharged on antiplatelet therapy alone. Peridevice flow was <3 mm in 98.4% at follow-up TOE. Device-related thrombus (DRT) was seen in 1.6% of cases. Cardiovascular death or ischaemic stroke occurred in 8.7% of patients at 2 years. The ischaemic stroke rate was 2.2%/year-a 67% reduction compared to the CHA2DS2-VASc predicted rate. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥ 3) occurred at rates of 10.1%/year (year 1) and 4.0%/year (year 2)., Conclusion: Following LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet device, the ischaemic stroke rate was reduced by 67% compared to the predicted risk. Closure was complete in 98.4% of cases and DRT seen in only 1.6%., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Idarucizumab is a monoclonal antibody fragment with high affinity for dabigatran reversing its anticoagulant effects within minutes. Thereby, patients with acute ischemic stroke who are on dabigatran treatment may become eligible for thrombolysis with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA). In patients on dabigatran with intracerebral hemorrhage idarucizumab could prevent lesion growth., Aims: To provide insights into the clinical use of idarucizumab in patients under effective dabigatran anticoagulation presenting with signs of acute ischemic stroke or intracranial hemorrhage., Methods: Retrospective data collected from German neurological/neurosurgical departments administering idarucizumab following product launch from January 2016 to August 2018 were used., Results: One-hundred and twenty stroke patients received idarucizumab in 61 stroke centers. Eighty patients treated with dabigatran presented with ischemic stroke and 40 patients suffered intracranial bleeding (intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in n  = 27). In patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis with rt-PA following idarucizumab, 78% showed a median improvement of 7 points in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. No bleeding complications were reported. Hematoma growth was observed in 3 out of 27 patients with ICH. Outcome was favorable with a median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale improvement of 4 points and modified Rankin score 0-3 in 61%. Six out of 40 individuals (15%) with intracranial bleeding died during hospital stay., Conclusion: Administration of rt-PA after reversal of dabigatran activity with idarucizumab in case of acute ischemic stroke seems feasible, effective, and safe. In dabigatran-associated intracranial hemorrhage, idarucizumab appears to prevent hematoma growth and to improve outcome.

Background and Purpose- The RE-SPECT ESUS trial (Randomized, Double-Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) tested the hypothesis that dabigatran would be superior to aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. This exploratory subgroup analysis investigates the impact of age, renal function (both predefined), and dabigatran dose (post hoc) on the rates of recurrent stroke and major bleeding. Methods- RE-SPECT ESUS was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran 150 or 110 mg (for patients aged ≥75 years and/or with creatinine clearance 30 to <50 mL/minute) twice daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. Results- The trial, which enrolled 5390 patients from December 2014 to January 2018, did not demonstrate superiority of dabigatran versus aspirin for prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. However, among the population qualifying for the lower dabigatran dose, the rate of recurrent stroke was reduced with dabigatran versus aspirin (7.4% versus 13.0%; hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.39-0.82]; interaction P =0.01). This was driven mainly by the subgroup aged ≥75 years (7.8% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43-0.94]; interaction P =0.10). Stroke rates tended to be lower with dabigatran versus aspirin with declining renal function. Risks for major bleeding were similar between treatments, irrespective of renal function, but with a trend for lower bleeding rates with dabigatran versus aspirin in older patients. Conclusions- In subgroup analyses of RE-SPECT ESUS, dabigatran reduced the rate of recurrent stroke compared with aspirin in patients qualifying for the lower dose of dabigatran. These results are hypothesis-generating. Aspirin remains the standard antithrombotic treatment for patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02239120.

Stroke has traditionally been classified according to the trial of ORG 10172 in acute stroke treatment (TOAST) criteria; however, the concept of cryptogenic stroke did not meet the operational criteria necessary to define patient populations eligible for randomized studies. Therefore, the concept of embolic stroke of undetermined etiology (ESUS) was developed. An underlying hypothesis was that most strokes in patients with ESUS are caused by embolic events, hence, anticoagulation may prevent secondary events. Therefore, two large randomized trials were conducted comparing dabigatran or rivaroxaban with acetylsalicylic acid. Both studies could not show superiority of the new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) compared to aspirin; however, subgroup analyses showed that there is a patient population that may benefit from oral anticoagulation.

Comprehensive stroke care is an interdisciplinary challenge. Close collaboration of cardiologists and stroke physicians is critical to ensure optimum utilisation of short- and long-term care and preventive measures in patients with stroke. Risk factor management is an important strategy that requires cardiologic involvement for primary and secondary stroke prevention. Treatment of stroke generally is led by stroke physicians, yet cardiologists need to be integrated care providers in stroke units to address all cardiovascular aspects of acute stroke care, including arrhythmia management, blood pressure control, elevated levels of cardiac troponins, valvular disease/endocarditis, and the general management of cardiovascular comorbidities. Despite substantial progress in stroke research and clinical care has been achieved, relevant gaps in clinical evidence remain and cause uncertainties in best practice for treatment and prevention of stroke. The Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology together with the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke in cooperation with the European Stroke Organisation and partners from related scientific societies, regulatory authorities and industry conveyed a two-day workshop to discuss current and emerging concepts and apparent gaps in stroke care, including risk factor management, acute diagnostics, treatments and complications, and operational/logistic issues for health care systems and integrated networks. Joint initiatives of cardiologists and stroke physicians are needed in research and clinical care to target unresolved interdisciplinary problems and to promote the best possible outcomes for patients with stroke.

Premises: Patients with migraine have a co-morbidity with vascular diseases such as hypertension, coronary heart disease, and stroke., Problem: This overview gives recommendations for the therapy of acute migraine attacks and for migraine  prevention in patients with vascular diseases. In particular, the use of triptans in patients with vascular diseases is discussed., Potential Solutions: Currently, there is a contraindication for the use of the triptans in patients with vascular disease, although there is no evidence that triptans increase the risk of heart attacks or stroke., (© 2020 American Headache Society.)

Prospective studies evaluating persistence to nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation are needed to improve our understanding of drug discontinuation. The study objective was to evaluate if and when patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation stop dabigatran treatment and to report outcomes following discontinuation. Patients prescribed dabigatran in diverse clinical practice settings were consecutively enrolled and followed for 2 years. Dabigatran persistence over time, reasons for discontinuation, and outcomes post discontinuation were assessed. Of 4,859 patients, aged 70.2 ± 10.4 years, 55.7% were male. Overall 2-year dabigatran persistence was 70.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.6 to 72.2). Persistence probability was lower in the first 6-month period (83.7% [82.7 to 84.8]) than in subsequent periods for patients on dabigatran at the start of each period (6 to 12 months, 92.5% [91.6 to 93.3]; 12 to 18 months, 95.1% [94.3 to 95.8]; 18 to 24 months, 96.3% [95.6 to 96.9]). Of 1,305 patients (26.9%) who discontinued dabigatran, adverse events were reported as the reason for discontinuation in 457 (35.0%). Standardized stroke incidence rate post discontinuation (per 100 patient-years) in patients discontinuing without switching to another oral anticoagulant was 1.76 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.76) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.76) in those who switched, consistent with the expected benefit of remaining on treatment. Patients persistent with treatment at 1 year had >90% probability of remaining persistent at 2 years suggesting clinical interventions to improve persistence should be focused on the early period following treatment initiation., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess antithrombotic therapy choices in relation to patient age in a large, global registry on atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods and Results: Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF) is an international programme involving patients with newly diagnosed AF and ≥1 risk factors for stroke. We used Phase II data (from November 2011 through December 2014), which commenced immediately following first non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) approval in participating countries. Of 15 092 patients (mean age 70.5 ± 11.0 years), enrolled at 982 centres, 26.9% were aged <65 years, 33.9% 65-74, 30.5% 75-84, and 8.6% ≥85 years old. Oral anticoagulant (OAC) use was 73.5%, 81.4%, 83.3%, and 82.3% (overall NOACs use was 44.4%, 49.7%, 48.7%, and 45.6%) for those aged <65, 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years, respectively. Corresponding proportions for antiplatelet monotherapy and no treatment were: 16.2% and 10.2%; 11.2% and 7.3%; 10.0% and 6.5%; 10.5% and 7.0%, respectively. Of those aged 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years, respectively, 83.7, 86.8 and 85.4% received OAC unless bleeding risk was high (HAS-BLED ≥3), whereby 64.1%, 63.5%, and 64.5% were anticoagulated, and 31.1%, 30.3%, and 31.3% received antiplatelets only. Of patients ≥85 years, OAC use was 88.1% in Europe (NOAC 45.1%), 79.5% in North America (NOAC 44.8%), and 54.1% in Asia (NOAC 40.2%)., Conclusion: Despite geographic differences in OAC use, neither OAC nor NOAC uptake was lower for patients ≥85 years old compared with younger patients. Although the majority of patients was prescribed OAC at all ages, nearly one-third received antiplatelet monotherapy when bleeding risk was increased., Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01468701., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

GLORIA-AF is a large, ongoing, prospective, global registry program run in 3 phases, assessing long-term safety and effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in clinical practice. This report provides the final analysis of 2-year clinical outcomes of the full cohort of 4873 patients prescribed dabigatran and followed for a mean of 18.0 +/- 9.4 months out of the 15,308 eligible patients enrolled in Phase II (2011-2014). The overall incidence rates per 100 person-years were: stroke 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.87), major bleeding 0.97 (0.76-1.23) and myocardial infarction (MI) 0.50 (0.35-0.69), with observed event rates broadly consistent in all study regions, which confirms the sustained safety and effectiveness of dabigatran over 2 years of observation in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Edoxaban is a direct factor Xa inhibitor approved for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Uninterrupted edoxaban therapy in patients undergoing AF ablation has not been tested., Methods and Results: The ELIMINATE-AF trial, a multinational, multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study, was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of once-daily edoxaban 60 mg (30 mg in patients indicated for dose reduction) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in AF patients undergoing catheter ablation. Patients were randomized 2:1 to edoxaban vs. VKA. The primary endpoint (per-protocol population) was time to first occurrence of all-cause death, stroke, or International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined major bleeding during the period from the end of the ablation procedure to end of treatment (90 days). Overall, 632 patients were enrolled, 614 randomized, and 553 received study drug and underwent ablation; 177 subjects underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging to assess silent cerebral infarcts. The primary endpoint (only major bleeds occurred) was observed in 0.3% (1 patient) on edoxaban and 2.0% (2 patients) on VKA [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.16 (0.02-1.73)]. In the ablation population (modified intent-to-treat population including patients with ablation), the primary endpoint was observed in 2.7% of edoxaban (N = 10) and 1.7% of VKA patients (N = 3) between start of ablation and end of treatment. There were one ischaemic and one haemorrhagic stroke, both in patients on edoxaban. Cerebral microemboli were detected in 13.8% (16) patients who received edoxaban and 9.6% (5) patients in the VKA group (nominal P = 0.62)., Conclusion: Uninterrupted edoxaban therapy represents an alternative to uninterrupted VKA treatment in patients undergoing AF ablation., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Stroke survivors carry a high risk of recurrence. Antithrombotic medications are paramount for secondary prevention and thus crucial to reduce the overall stroke burden. Appropriate antithrombotic agent selection should be based on the best understanding of the physiopathological mechanism that led to the initial ischemic injury. Antiplatelet therapy is preferred for lesions characterized by atherosclerosis and endothelial injury, whereas anticoagulant agents are favored for cardiogenic embolism and highly thrombophilic conditions. Large randomized controlled trials have provided new data to support recommendations for the evidence-based use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulant agents after stroke. In this review, the authors cover recent trials that have altered clinical practice, cite systematic reviews and meta-analyses, review evidence-based recommendations based on older landmark trials, and indicate where there are still evidence-gaps and new trials being conducted., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation increased cerebral collateral blood flow, stabilised the blood-brain barrier, and reduced infarct size, in preclinical models of acute ischaemic stroke, and showed potential benefit in a pilot randomised trial in humans. The pivotal ImpACT-24B trial aimed to determine whether sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation 8-24 h after acute ischaemic stroke improved functional outcome., Methods: ImpACT-24B is a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, pivotal trial done at 73 centres in 18 countries. It included patients (men aged 40-80 years and women aged 40-85 years) with anterior-circulation acute ischaemic stroke, not undergoing reperfusion therapy. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned via web-based randomisation to receive active sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (intervention group) or sham stimulation (sham-control group) 8-24 h after stroke onset. Patients, clinical care providers, and all outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference between active and sham groups in the proportion of patients whose 3-month level of disability improved above expectations. This endpoint was evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (defined as all patients who received one active or sham treatment session) and the population with confirmed cortical involvement (CCI) and was analysed using the Hochberg multi-step procedure (significance in both populations if p<0·05 in both, and in one population if p<0·025 in that one). Safety endpoints at 3 months were all serious adverse events (SAEs), SAEs related to implant placement or removal, SAEs related to stimulation, neurological deterioration, and mortality. All patients who underwent an attempted sphenopalatine ganglion stimulator or sham stimulator placement procedure were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00826059., Findings: Between June 10, 2011, and March 7, 2018, 1078 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention or the sham-control group. 1000 patients received at least one session of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation or sham stimulation and entered the mITT population (481 [48%] received sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, 519 [52%] were sham controls), among whom 520 (52%) patients had CCI on imaging. The proportion of patients in the mITT population whose 3-month disability level was better than expected was 49% (234/481) in the intervention group versus 45% (236/519) in the sham-control group (odds ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·89-1·46; p=0·31). In the CCI population, the proportion was 50% (121/244) in the intervention group versus 40% (110/276) in the sham-control group (1·48, 1·05-2·10; p=0·0258). There was an inverse U-shaped dose-response relationship between attained sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation intensity and the primary outcome in the CCI population: the proportion with favourable outcome increased from 40% to 70% at low-midrange intensity and decreased back to 40% at high intensity stimulation (p=0·0034). There were no differences in mortality or SAEs between the intervention group (n=536) and the sham-control group (n=519) in the safety population., Interpretation: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is safe for patients with acute ischaemic stroke 8-24 h after onset, who are ineligible for thrombolytic therapy. Although not reaching significance, the trial's results support that, among patients with imaging evidence of cortical involvement at presentation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is likely to improve functional outcome., Funding: BrainsGate Ltd., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Ischemic Stroke System is a novel device designed to deliver stimulation to the sphenopalatine ganglion(SPG).The SPG sends parasympathetic innervations to the anterior cerebral circulation. In rat stroke models, SPG stimulation results in increased cerebral blood flow, reduced infarct volume, protects the blood brain barrier, and improved neurological outcome. We present here the results of a prospective, multinational, single-arm, feasibility study designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and potential benefit of SPG stimulation inpatients with acute ischemic stroke(AIS)., Methods: Patients with anterior AIS, baseline NIHSS 7-20 and ability to initiate treatment within 24h from stroke onset, were implanted and treated with the SPG stimulation. Patients were followed up for 90 days. Effect was assessed by comparing the patient outcome to a matched population from the NINDS rt-PA trial placebo patients., Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled (mean age 57years, mean baseline NIHSS 12 and mean treatment time from stroke onset 19h). The observed mortality rate(12.2%), serious adverse events (SAE)incidence(23.5%) and nature of SAE were within the expected range for the population. The modified intention to treat cohort consisted of 84 patients who were compared to matched patients from the NINDS placebo arm. Patients treated with SPG stimulation had an average mRS lower by 0.76 than the historical controls(CMH test p = 0.001)., Conclusion: The implantation procedure and the SPG stimulation, initiated within 24hr from stroke onset, are feasible, safe, and tolerable. The results call for a follow-up randomized trial (funded by BrainsGate; clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03733236)., Competing Interests: We have the following interests: Bernd Griewing is employed by Neurologische Klinic GmbH. The study was funded by BrainsGate Ltd, Caesarea, Israel (www.brainsgate.com). There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background and Purpose- We assessed the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet agents after noncardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack and examined how these vary according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics. Methods- We did a network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 6 randomized trials of the effects of commonly prescribed antiplatelet agents in the long-term (≥3 months) secondary prevention of noncardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Individual patient data from 43 112 patients were pooled and reanalyzed. Main outcomes were serious vascular events (nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or vascular death), major bleeding, and net clinical benefit (serious vascular event or major bleeding). Subgroup analyses were done according to age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, qualifying diagnosis, type of vessel involved (large versus small vessel disease), and time from qualifying event to randomization. Results- Aspirin/dipyridamole combination (RR NMA-adj , 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94) significantly reduced the risk of vascular events compared with aspirin, as did clopidogrel (RR NMA-adj , 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98), and aspirin/clopidogrel combination (RR NMA-adj , 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96). Clopidogrel caused significantly less major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage than aspirin, aspirin/dipyridamole combination, and aspirin/clopidogrel combination. Aspirin/clopidogrel combination caused significantly more major bleeding than aspirin, aspirin/dipyridamole combination, and clopidogrel. Net clinical benefit was similar for clopidogrel and aspirin/dipyridamole combination (RR NMA-adj , 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05). Subgroup analyses showed no heterogeneity of treatment effectiveness across prespecified subgroups. The excess risk of major bleeding associated with aspirin/clopidogrel combination compared with clopidogrel alone was higher in patients aged <65 years than it was in patients ≥65 years (RR NMA-adj , 3.9 versus 1.7). Conclusions- Results favor clopidogrel and aspirin/dipyridamole combination for long-term secondary prevention after noncardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack, regardless of patient characteristics. Aspirin/clopidogrel combination was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with other antiplatelet regimens.

Background: Cryptogenic strokes constitute 20 to 30% of ischemic strokes, and most cryptogenic strokes are considered to be embolic and of undetermined source. An earlier randomized trial showed that rivaroxaban is no more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke after a presumed embolic stroke from an undetermined source. Whether dabigatran would be effective in preventing recurrent strokes after this type of stroke was unclear., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg twice daily as compared with aspirin at a dose of 100 mg once daily in patients who had had an embolic stroke of undetermined source. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding., Results: A total of 5390 patients were enrolled at 564 sites and were randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (2695 patients) or aspirin (2695 patients). During a median follow-up of 19 months, recurrent strokes occurred in 177 patients (6.6%) in the dabigatran group (4.1% per year) and in 207 patients (7.7%) in the aspirin group (4.8% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.03; P = 0.10). Ischemic strokes occurred in 172 patients (4.0% per year) and 203 patients (4.7% per year), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.03). Major bleeding occurred in 77 patients (1.7% per year) in the dabigatran group and in 64 patients (1.4% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.66). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 70 patients (1.6% per year) and 41 patients (0.9% per year), respectively., Conclusions: In patients with a recent history of embolic stroke of undetermined source, dabigatran was not superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke. The incidence of major bleeding was not greater in the dabigatran group than in the aspirin group, but there were more clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in the dabigatran group. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-SPECT ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02239120.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)