We are pleased to present the first collection dedicated to highlighting the research of our Editorial Board, entitled Editors' Showcase: Acute Stroke and Interventional Therapies. This exclusive collection is open to Editorial Board members only, and will feature high-quality contributions from our Associate and Review Editors. Specialty Chief Editor, Professor David Liebeskind, leads this initiative which will focus on new insights, novel developments, current challenges, latest discoveries, recent advances, and future perspectives in the field of Acute Stroke and Interventional Therapies. The work presented here celebrates the broad diversity of research performed across the section and aims to put a spotlight on all areas of interest to our Editors. This collection aims to further support Frontiers’ strong community by recognizing and promoting the work of highly deserving Editors.

University of California, Los Angeles

Views

Article Views

Article Downloads

Frontiers in Stroke

Acute Stroke and Interventional Therapies

Editors' Showcase: Acute Stroke and Interventional Therapies

Background and purposeAdjunctive tirofiban administration in patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) has been investigated in several studies. However, the findings are conflict. This study aimed to compare the effect of different administration pathways of tirofiban on patients undergoing EVT for acute LVO with intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD).</sec>MethodsPatients were selected from the ANGEL-ACT Registry (Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Multicenter Registry Study) and divided into four groups: intra-arterial (IA), intravenous (IV), and intra-arterial plus intravenous (IA+IV) and non-tirofiban. The primary outcome was 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, and the secondary outcomes included the rates of mRS 0–1, 0–2, and 0–3 at 90-day, successful recanalization. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and other safety endpoints. The multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for potential baseline confounders were performed to compare the outcomes. A propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1:1:1 ratio was conducted among four groups, and the outcomes were then compared in the post-matched population.</sec>ResultsA total of 502 patients were included, 80 of which were in the IA-tirofiban group, 73 in IV-tirofiban, 181 in (IA+IV)-tirofiban group, and 168 in the non-tirofiban group. The median (IQR) 90-day mRS score in the four groups of IA, IV, IA+IV, and non-tirofiban was, respectively 3(0–5) vs. 1(0–4) vs. 1(0–4) vs. 3(0–5). The adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.30, P = 0.330), with IV-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.78–2.36, P = 0.276), and with (IA+IV)-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.64–1.64, P = 0.912). The adjusted OR for mRS 0–1 and mRS 0–2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.51 (95% CI, 0.27–0.98, P = 0.042) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.26–0.94, P = 0.033). The other outcomes of each group were similar with non-tirofiban group, all P was >0.05. After PSM, the common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.18–0.94, P = 0.036), and the OR for mRS 0–1 and mRS 0–2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.28 (95% CI, 0.11–0.74, P = 0.011) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.09–0.67, P = 0.006).</sec>ConclusionsIntra-arterial administration of tirofiban was associated with worse outcome than non-tirofiban, which suggested that intra-arterial tirofiban had a harmful effect on patients undergoing EVT for ICAD-LVO.</sec>Clinical trial registration<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</ext-link>, Unique identifier: NCT03370939.</sec>

Background and purpose: Adjunctive tirofiban administration in patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) has been investigated in several studies. However, the findings are conflict. This study aimed to compare the effect of different administration pathways of tirofiban on patients undergoing EVT for acute LVO with intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD).Methods: Patients were selected from the ANGEL-ACT Registry (Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Multicenter Registry Study) and divided into four groups: intra-arterial (IA), intravenous (IV), and intra-arterial plus intravenous (IA+IV) and non-tirofiban. The primary outcome was 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, and the secondary outcomes included the rates of mRS 0–1, 0–2, and 0–3 at 90-day, successful recanalization. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and other safety endpoints. The multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for potential baseline confounders were performed to compare the outcomes. A propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1:1:1 ratio was conducted among four groups, and the outcomes were then compared in the post-matched population.Results: A total of 502 patients were included, 80 of which were in the IA-tirofiban group, 73 in IV-tirofiban, 181 in (IA+IV)-tirofiban group, and 168 in the non-tirofiban group. The median (IQR) 90-day mRS score in the four groups of IA, IV, IA+IV, and non-tirofiban was, respectively 3(0–5) vs. 1(0–4) vs. 1(0–4) vs. 3(0–5). The adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.30, P = 0.330), with IV-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.78–2.36, P = 0.276), and with (IA+IV)-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.64–1.64, P = 0.912). The adjusted OR for mRS 0–1 and mRS 0–2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.51 (95% CI, 0.27–0.98, P = 0.042) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.26–0.94, P = 0.033). The other outcomes of each group were similar with non-tirofiban group, all P was &gt;0.05. After PSM, the common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.18–0.94, P = 0.036), and the OR for mRS 0–1 and mRS 0–2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.28 (95% CI, 0.11–0.74, P = 0.011) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.09–0.67, P = 0.006).Conclusions: Intra-arterial administration of tirofiban was associated with worse outcome than non-tirofiban, which suggested that intra-arterial tirofiban had a harmful effect on patients undergoing EVT for ICAD-LVO.Clinical trial registration: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov" style="color:grey;">http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</a>, Unique identifier: NCT03370939.

The impact of intraarterial, intravenous, and combined tirofiban on endovascular treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerotic occlusion

BackgroundTandem occlusions cause 10–15% of LVO acute ischemic strokes but are difficult to treat endovascularly and frequently excluded from clinical trials. The optimum endovascular method is still debated, however going directly through the carotid occlusion can speed up the procedure and reduce procedural risk by eliminating an exchange maneuver.</sec>MethodUsing retrospective data from three centers, we compared treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions using a 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon suitable for the wire, vs. the usual technique of an 0.014'wire. We compared the successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3) rates, 90 days' functional outcomes (mRS 0–2), and puncture-to-recanalization times between both procedures.</sec>ResultsForty-two consecutive patients with atherosclerotic tandem occlusions were included; 25 were treated with the 0.014'wire technique and 17 with the 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon technique. The direct technique achieved a higher rate of successful recanalization (100 vs. 72%, P = 0.018), better functional outcome (88.4 vs. 48.0%, P = 0.044), and faster procedure times (mean 65.1 mins vs. 114.8 mins, P < 0.001). The number of attempts was similar between both groups (median 2 vs 3 attempts, P = 0.101). There was no significant difference in the complication rate between both groups (5.9 vs. 12.0%, P = 0.462).</sec>ConclusionCompared to previous endovascular techniques for treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions, the direct technique using standard 0.035' guidewires and dotterisation or a peripheral vascular balloon is significantly faster with better outcomes. However, this will require further external validation in larger cohorts.</sec>

Background: Tandem occlusions cause 10–15% of LVO acute ischemic strokes but are difficult to treat endovascularly and frequently excluded from clinical trials. The optimum endovascular method is still debated, however going directly through the carotid occlusion can speed up the procedure and reduce procedural risk by eliminating an exchange maneuver.Method: Using retrospective data from three centers, we compared treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions using a 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon suitable for the wire, vs. the usual technique of an 0.014'wire. We compared the successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3) rates, 90 days' functional outcomes (mRS 0–2), and puncture-to-recanalization times between both procedures.Results: Forty-two consecutive patients with atherosclerotic tandem occlusions were included; 25 were treated with the 0.014'wire technique and 17 with the 0.035'-guidewire and direct dotterisation or angioplasty with a peripheral vascular balloon technique. The direct technique achieved a higher rate of successful recanalization (100 vs. 72%, P = 0.018), better functional outcome (88.4 vs. 48.0%, P = 0.044), and faster procedure times (mean 65.1 mins vs. 114.8 mins, P &lt; 0.001). The number of attempts was similar between both groups (median 2 vs 3 attempts, P = 0.101). There was no significant difference in the complication rate between both groups (5.9 vs. 12.0%, P = 0.462).Conclusion: Compared to previous endovascular techniques for treating atherosclerotic tandem occlusions, the direct technique using standard 0.035' guidewires and dotterisation or a peripheral vascular balloon is significantly faster with better outcomes. However, this will require further external validation in larger cohorts.

Direct dotterising or angioplasty of acute stroke due to tandem atherosclerotic occlusions

ObjectivesNo standard treatment exists for branch atheromatous disease (BAD), and patients' conditions often worsen after thrombolytic therapy. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of tirofiban after early neurological deterioration (END) development in patients receiving intravenous alteplase.</sec>Materials and methodsBleeding incidence, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and modified Rankin scale (mRS) score were assessed for patients with BAD receiving alteplase within 4.5 h of stroke onset.</sec>ResultsAmong 193 patients, 119 (61.64%) did not experience exacerbation after thrombolytic treatment, 74 (38.34%) had END, 34 were treated with tirofiban after END, and 40 received standard treatment. On day 7 or at discharge, no cases of symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage were noted, and no patient died during the 90-day follow-up. Fifty-two of 74 patients (70.27%) had a good mRS score at 90 days. Among patients with END who received tirofiban, 27 (79.41%) had a good mRS score at 90 days, which was significantly better than that of the 18 cases that did not receive tirofiban after exacerbation (45%; P < 0.001). NIHSS scores were significantly lower 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days after tirofiban treatment in patients with exacerbation after thrombolytic therapy than in those without tirofiban treatment.</sec>ConclusionsPatients with BAD have elevated risks of END after thrombolytic therapy. Compared with conventional oral antiplatelet aggregation drugs, tirofiban rescue therapy resulted in significantly better NIHSS and mRS scores without increased symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage rates.</sec>

Objectives: No standard treatment exists for branch atheromatous disease (BAD), and patients' conditions often worsen after thrombolytic therapy. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of tirofiban after early neurological deterioration (END) development in patients receiving intravenous alteplase.Materials and methods: Bleeding incidence, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and modified Rankin scale (mRS) score were assessed for patients with BAD receiving alteplase within 4.5 h of stroke onset.Results: Among 193 patients, 119 (61.64%) did not experience exacerbation after thrombolytic treatment, 74 (38.34%) had END, 34 were treated with tirofiban after END, and 40 received standard treatment. On day 7 or at discharge, no cases of symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage were noted, and no patient died during the 90-day follow-up. Fifty-two of 74 patients (70.27%) had a good mRS score at 90 days. Among patients with END who received tirofiban, 27 (79.41%) had a good mRS score at 90 days, which was significantly better than that of the 18 cases that did not receive tirofiban after exacerbation (45%; P &lt; 0.001). NIHSS scores were significantly lower 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days after tirofiban treatment in patients with exacerbation after thrombolytic therapy than in those without tirofiban treatment.Conclusions: Patients with BAD have elevated risks of END after thrombolytic therapy. Compared with conventional oral antiplatelet aggregation drugs, tirofiban rescue therapy resulted in significantly better NIHSS and mRS scores without increased symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage rates.

Safety and efficacy of tirofiban after early neurological deterioration in patients with branch atheromatous disease receiving alteplase

BackgroundDeep cerebral vein (DCV) thrombosis is a rare type of cerebrovascular disorder and usually has an unfavorable prognosis. Although endovascular treatment measures for venous sinus thrombosis are well-described and evidenced, relevant reports on DCV thrombosis are presently lacking.</sec>Case ReportIn this report, we present the first case of the successful use of stent retriever thrombectomy combined with local urokinase thrombolysis for DCV thrombosis and have described the detailed procedure.</sec>ConclusionThe use of stent retriever thrombectomy combined with local thrombolysis was technically feasible and effective for DCV thrombosis. The key to the successful restoration of DCV outflow was to recanalize the occluded vein of Galen.</sec>

Background: Deep cerebral vein (DCV) thrombosis is a rare type of cerebrovascular disorder and usually has an unfavorable prognosis. Although endovascular treatment measures for venous sinus thrombosis are well-described and evidenced, relevant reports on DCV thrombosis are presently lacking.Case Report: In this report, we present the first case of the successful use of stent retriever thrombectomy combined with local urokinase thrombolysis for DCV thrombosis and have described the detailed procedure.Conclusion: The use of stent retriever thrombectomy combined with local thrombolysis was technically feasible and effective for DCV thrombosis. The key to the successful restoration of DCV outflow was to recanalize the occluded vein of Galen.

Use of Stent Retriever Thrombectomy Combined With Local Urokinase Thrombolysis for Deep Cerebral Vein Thrombosis: A Case Report

Spasticity is common after a stroke and has a negative impact on functional and quality-of-life measures. There is an unmet medical need to provide safe and effective treatment using non-pharmacological approaches. Trans-spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is an emerging modality for non-invasive neuromodulation that induces reduction of spinal excitability leading to a decrease in spasticity. We describe current treatment options for spasticity, including a literature review about the use of tsDCS in patients with spasticity. We found four clinical studies that used tsDCS to treat spasticity for different neurological conditions including hereditary spastic paraplegia, upper extremity spasticity following stroke, multiple sclerosis, and incomplete chronic spinal cord injury. Spasticity was the primary outcome in three of the studies and a secondary outcome in the final study. The three studies that addressed spasticity as the primary outcome found that active tsDCS decreased spasticity compared to sham. These studies suggest that tsDCS can modulate spinal motor and sensory spinal pathways through the use of specific electrode montages and stimulation parameters. This therapy can improve motor functions and may represent a viable treatment option for spasticity.

Spasticity is common after a stroke and has a negative impact on functional and quality-of-life measures. There is an unmet medical need to provide safe and effective treatment using non-pharmacological approaches. Trans-spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is an emerging modality for non-invasive neuromodulation that induces reduction of spinal excitability leading to a decrease in spasticity. We describe current treatment options for spasticity, including a literature review about the use of tsDCS in patients with spasticity. We found four clinical studies that used tsDCS to treat spasticity for different neurological conditions including hereditary spastic paraplegia, upper extremity spasticity following stroke, multiple sclerosis, and incomplete chronic spinal cord injury. Spasticity was the primary outcome in three of the studies and a secondary outcome in the final study. The three studies that addressed spasticity as the primary outcome found that active tsDCS decreased spasticity compared to sham. These studies suggest that tsDCS can modulate spinal motor and sensory spinal pathways through the use of specific electrode montages and stimulation parameters. This therapy can improve motor functions and may represent a viable treatment option for spasticity.