Trial design and reporting standards for intra-arterial cerebral thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates that stroke costs now exceed 45 billion dollars per year. Stroke is the third leading cause of death and one of the leading causes of adult disability in North America, Europe, and Asia. A number of well-designed randomized stroke trials and case series have now been reported in the literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. These stroke trials have included intravenous studies, intra-arterial studies, and combinations of both, as well as use of mechanical devices for removal of thromboemboli and of neuroprotectant drugs, alone or in combination with thrombolytic therapy. At this time, the only therapy demonstrated to improve outcomes from an acute stroke is thrombolysis of the clot responsible for the ischemic event. There is room for improvement in stroke lysis studies. Divergent criteria, with disparate reporting standards and definitions, have made direct comparisons between stroke trials difficult to compare and contrast in terms of overall patient outcomes and efficacy of treatment. There is a need for more uniform definitions of multiple variables such as collateral flow, degree of recanalization, assessment of perfusion, and infarct size. In addition, there are multiple unanswered questions that require further investigation, in particular, questions as to which patients are best treated with thrombolysis. One of the most important predictors of clinical success is time to treatment, with early treatment of <3 hours for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and <6 hours for intra-arterial thrombolysis demonstrating significant improvement in terms of 90-day clinical outcome and reduced cerebral hemorrhage. It is possible that improved imaging that identifies the ischemic penumbra and distinguishes it from irreversibly infarcted tissue will more accurately select patients for therapy than duration of symptoms. There are additional problems in the assessment of patients eligible for thrombolysis. These include being able to predict whether a particular site of occlusion can be successfully revascularized, predict an individual patient's prognosis and outcome after revascularization, and in particular, to predict the development of intracerebral hemorrhage, with and without clinical deterioration. It is not clear to assume that achieving immediate flow restoration due to thrombolytic therapy implies clinical success and improved outcome. There is no simple correlation between recanalization and observed clinical benefit in all ischemic stroke patients, because other interactive variables, such as collateral circulation, the ischemic penumbra, lesion location and extent, time to treatment, and hemorrhagic conversion, are all interrelated to outcome.