What guides decision-making on intravenous thrombolysis in acute vestibular syndrome and suspected ischemic stroke in the posterior circulation?

Abstract

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is rarely performed in dizzy patients with acute vestibular syndrome (AVS) or acute imbalance (AIS) even if posterior circulation stroke (PCS) is suspected. Decision-making may be affected by uncertainties in discriminating central from peripheral vestibulopathy or concerns of IVT-related harm, particularly intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), but related studies are missing. Using an in-house register of dizzy patients coming to the emergency room, we identified 29 AVS/AIS patients who presented within 4.5 h after onset, revealed clinical signs indicative of PCS (central oculomotor signs, mild focal abnormalities), and had non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT). Patients treated with IVT ( n = 15) were compared to NoIVT patients ( n = 14) with regard to clinical and imaging (including perfusion computed tomography, CTP) parameters, occurrence of ICH and short-term clinical outcome (NIHSS improvement; ability to walk independently). IVT and NoIVT patients did not differ in baseline characteristics, central oculomotor signs, or clinical outcome. IVT patients more often exhibited disabling vestibular symptoms (severe dizziness/vertigo, inability to stand unsupported) and focal abnormalities than NoIVT patients. There was no ICH in either group. CTP was performed in 0% of NoIVT versus 80% of IVT patients, seven of twelve revealing posterior circulation hypoperfusion. Comparison of initial hypoperfusion (CTP) and final stroke (NCCT) revealed IVT-related benefit (smaller lesion) in three of seven IVT patients. In AVS/AIS patients with suspected PCS, disabling vestibular symptoms, focal neurological deficits, and hypoperfusion on CTP seem to direct decision-making pro IVT. In our small cohort, there were no significant IVT-related clinical benefits, no IVT-related ICHs, and salvage of brain tissue in some patients.