Acute Stroke Management — Part 1: Prehospital Recognition, ED Evaluation & Neuroimaging

Stroke types, prehospital stroke scales (CPSS, LAMS, RACE, FAST-ED), complete NIHSS scoring, focused history, laboratory evaluation, and neuroimaging (NCCT, CTA, CTP, MRI/DWI, ASPECTS).

guidelinesMar 2026guidelines

1. Stroke Classification and Pathophysiology

1.1 Ischemic Stroke (87% of All Strokes)

Ischemic stroke results from occlusion of a cerebral artery, leading to focal brain ischemia and infarction. The ischemic penumbra — tissue surrounding the infarct core that is hypoperfused but potentially salvageable — forms the basis for all acute reperfusion therapies.1

Subtypes by Mechanism (TOAST Classification)

SubtypeMechanismProportionKey Features
Large artery atherosclerosisAtherothrombosis or artery-to-artery embolism from extracranial or intracranial large vessels~25%Carotid stenosis, intracranial atherosclerosis; cortical or large subcortical infarcts
CardioembolismEmbolism from cardiac source (atrial fibrillation, valvular disease, LV thrombus, PFO)~25%Atrial fibrillation is most common source; multiple vascular territory infarcts suggest cardioembolism
Small vessel occlusion (lacunar)Lipohyalinosis or microatheroma of penetrating arterioles~20%Subcortical infarcts < 1.5 cm; classic lacunar syndromes (pure motor, pure sensory, ataxic hemiparesis, dysarthria-clumsy hand, sensorimotor)
Other determined etiologyDissection, vasculitis, hypercoagulable states, sickle cell disease, moyamoya~5%Younger patients; consider in stroke without traditional risk factors
Cryptogenic / ESUSNo identifiable mechanism after thorough evaluation~25%Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS); prolonged cardiac monitoring often reveals paroxysmal AF

Large Vessel Occlusion (LVO)

Large vessel occlusions account for approximately 25-40% of acute ischemic strokes and produce the most devastating outcomes. LVO is defined as occlusion of the intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA), proximal middle cerebral artery (M1 or proximal M2 segment), or basilar artery. Identification of LVO is critical because these patients are candidates for endovascular thrombectomy.2

1.2 Hemorrhagic Stroke

Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ICH) — 10% of All Strokes

Spontaneous (non-traumatic) bleeding into the brain parenchyma, most commonly caused by hypertensive arteriopathy (affecting deep perforating arteries) or cerebral amyloid angiopathy (affecting cortical and leptomeningeal vessels). ICH carries a 30-day mortality of 30-50% and accounts for a disproportionate share of stroke-related disability.3

ICH LocationCommon EtiologyPercentage
Basal ganglia (putamen)Hypertensive arteriopathy~35%
ThalamusHypertensive arteriopathy~15%
Lobar (cortical/subcortical)Cerebral amyloid angiopathy, AVM, tumor~30%
CerebellumHypertensive arteriopathy~10%
Pons/brainstemHypertensive arteriopathy~10%

Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH) — 3% of All Strokes

Bleeding into the subarachnoid space, most commonly from rupture of an intracranial saccular aneurysm (~85%). Presents with sudden-onset severe headache (“thunderclap headache”) with or without focal neurological deficits. SAH carries an overall mortality of approximately 25-50%, with an additional 30% of survivors experiencing significant morbidity.4

1.3 Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA)

TIA is defined as a transient episode of neurological dysfunction caused by focal brain, spinal cord, or retinal ischemia, without acute infarction on imaging. The tissue-based definition (absence of infarction on diffusion-weighted MRI) has replaced the older time-based definition (symptoms lasting < 24 hours). Approximately 10-15% of patients with TIA will have a stroke within 90 days, with the highest risk in the first 48 hours.5


2. Prehospital Recognition and Stroke Scales

2.1 EMS Activation and Stroke System of Care

Prehospital recognition of stroke is the critical first link in the chain of acute stroke care. The major professional societies recommend:1 6

  • Public education campaigns emphasizing stroke warning signs
  • 9-1-1 activation for any suspected stroke symptom
  • EMS dispatch protocols that prioritize stroke calls
  • Prehospital stroke screening using validated scales
  • Prehospital notification of the receiving stroke center
  • Transport to the highest-level stroke center within a reasonable transport time
  • Goal: EMS scene time < 15 minutes for suspected stroke

2.2 Prehospital Stroke Screening Scales

Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS)

The most widely used prehospital screening tool. Assesses three items; any single abnormality has a sensitivity of approximately 66-80% and specificity of 85-90% for stroke.7

ItemNormalAbnormal
Facial droopBoth sides of face move equally when patient smilesOne side of face does not move as well as the other
Arm driftBoth arms move equally or not at all (eyes closed, arms extended 10 seconds)One arm drifts downward compared to the other
SpeechPatient uses correct words with no slurringSlurred or inappropriate words or unable to speak

Interpretation: Any single abnormality = positive screen → activate stroke protocol.

Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS)

A brief motor examination tool validated for identifying both stroke and LVO in the prehospital setting.8

ItemScoring
Facial droop0 = Absent; 1 = Present
Arm drift0 = Absent; 1 = Drifts down; 2 = Falls rapidly
Grip strength0 = Normal; 1 = Weak grip; 2 = No grip

Total score: 0-5

LAMS ScoreInterpretation
≥ 1Positive screen for stroke
≥ 4High probability of LVO (sensitivity ~76%, specificity ~65%)

Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE) Scale

A more comprehensive prehospital scale designed specifically to identify LVO candidates for direct transport to endovascular-capable centers.9

ItemScoring
Facial palsy0 = Absent; 1 = Mild; 2 = Moderate-severe
Arm motor function0 = Normal/mild; 1 = Moderate; 2 = Severe
Leg motor function0 = Normal/mild; 1 = Moderate; 2 = Severe
Head/gaze deviation0 = Absent; 1 = Present
Aphasia (dominant hemisphere) / Agnosia (non-dominant)0 = Performs both tasks correctly; 1 = Performs one correctly; 2 = Performs neither correctly

Total score: 0-9

RACE ScoreInterpretation
≥ 5High probability of LVO (sensitivity ~85%, specificity ~68%)

Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED)

ItemScoring
Facial palsy0 = Normal; 1 = Minor; 2 = Partial/complete
Arm weakness0 = None; 1 = Drift; 2 = Some/no effort against gravity
Speech changes0 = Normal; 1 = Mild-moderate; 2 = Severe/global/mute
Eye deviation0 = Absent; 2 = Present
Denial/neglect0 = Absent; 2 = Present

Total score: 0-10. Score ≥ 4 suggests LVO (sensitivity ~60%, specificity ~90%).10

Vision, Aphasia, Neglect (VAN) Assessment

A cortical function screen designed to detect LVO by identifying cortical signs rather than motor deficits alone. The VAN assessment is performed only if a basic motor screen (face, arm, speech) is positive.11

StepAssessment
V — Visual disturbanceField cut (confrontation testing) or double simultaneous extinction
A — AphasiaDifficulty speaking or understanding (ask patient to describe scene, follow commands)
N — NeglectForced gaze deviation, inability to feel both sides simultaneously, or lack of awareness of one side

Interpretation: Positive motor screen + any VAN positive = high probability of LVO → consider direct transport to comprehensive stroke center.

2.3 Prehospital LVO Triage — Scale Comparison

ScaleItemsScore RangeLVO ThresholdSensitivity for LVOSpecificity for LVOTime to Complete
CPSS30-3Any abnormality (stroke only)N/A (stroke screen)N/A (stroke screen)< 1 min
LAMS30-5≥ 4~76%~65%< 1 min
RACE50-9≥ 5~85%~68%1-2 min
FAST-ED50-10≥ 4~60%~90%1-2 min
VAN3 corticalBinaryAny positive~100%~90%2-3 min

3. Emergency Department Evaluation

3.1 Time Targets

The fundamental principle of acute stroke care is minimizing time from symptom onset to definitive treatment. The following benchmarks are recommended by the major stroke and cardiovascular professional societies:1 6

MetricTarget
Door-to-physician evaluation≤ 10 minutes
Door-to-stroke team notification≤ 15 minutes
Door-to-CT initiation≤ 20 minutes
Door-to-CT interpretation≤ 45 minutes
Door-to-needle (IV thrombolysis)≤ 60 minutes (goal ≤ 45 minutes)
Door-to-groin puncture (EVT)≤ 90 minutes (from arrival at EVT-capable center)
Onset-to-reperfusion (EVT)≤ 6 hours (standard window)

3.2 Initial Assessment

Airway, Breathing, Circulation

  • Assess airway patency; intubate if GCS ≤ 8 or inability to protect airway
  • Monitor oxygen saturation; supplemental O2 if SpO2 < 94%
  • Do NOT administer supplemental oxygen if SpO2 ≥ 94% (no benefit, potential harm)1
  • Establish IV access; avoid dextrose-containing fluids (hyperglycemia worsens outcomes)
  • Cardiac monitoring — stroke and cardiac events share risk factors; acute MI and arrhythmias can coexist with or cause stroke

Focused History — “LAST KNOWN WELL” is Critical

The last known well (LKW) time is the single most important historical data point, as it determines eligibility for time-based reperfusion therapies. LKW is defined as the last time the patient was observed at their neurological baseline — NOT the time symptoms were discovered.1

History ElementWhy It Matters
Last known well timeDetermines thrombolysis/thrombectomy eligibility
Symptom onset and progressionAcute vs. progressive; stuttering symptoms suggest TIA or crescendo TIA
Anticoagulant/antiplatelet useAffects thrombolysis eligibility and hemorrhage risk; specific agent and last dose
Recent surgery or traumaContraindication to thrombolysis (within 14-21 days)
History of intracranial hemorrhageRelative contraindication to thrombolysis
Seizure at onsetConsider Todd paralysis as mimic; does not exclude thrombolysis if deficit clearly ischemic
Baseline functional statusmRS score; affects treatment decisions in extended windows
Head trauma or stroke in past 3 monthsContraindication to thrombolysis
GI or GU hemorrhage in past 21 daysContraindication to thrombolysis
Arterial puncture at non-compressible site in past 7 daysContraindication to thrombolysis
PregnancyRelative contraindication; risk-benefit analysis

3.3 Laboratory Evaluation

Only blood glucose is required before initiating IV thrombolysis. Other labs should be drawn but should NOT delay treatment unless there is clinical suspicion of a specific abnormality.1

TestRationaleMust Result Before tPA?
Blood glucose (point-of-care)Hypoglycemia is a stroke mimic; hyperglycemia worsens outcomesYES — only required pre-treatment test
CBC with plateletsThrombocytopenia (< 100,000) is a contraindication to thrombolysisOnly if clinical suspicion of thrombocytopenia
PT/INRElevated INR (> 1.7) is a contraindication to thrombolysisOnly if patient is on warfarin or suspected coagulopathy
aPTTElevated aPTT is a contraindication if on heparinOnly if patient is on heparin
TroponinAcute MI may coexist with or cause strokeNo — send but do not wait
Basic metabolic panelElectrolyte abnormalities; renal function for CTA contrastNo — send but do not wait
Type and screenPreparation for possible surgical intervention or transfusionNo — send but do not wait

4. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) — Complete Reference

The NIHSS is a 15-item neurological examination scale that provides a quantitative measure of stroke-related neurological deficit. It is the standard tool for assessing stroke severity, determining treatment eligibility, and monitoring neurological status over time. The scale is performed by trained clinicians and takes approximately 5-8 minutes to complete.12

4.1 General Scoring Rules

  • Score what the patient does, not what you think they can do
  • Score the first response, not the best response (except where noted)
  • Do not coach the patient
  • Record each item independently — do not allow knowledge of one item’s result to influence another
  • Score items in the order listed
  • For items where left/right is tested, score the worse side unless otherwise specified
  • A total NIHSS score of 0 indicates no measurable deficit; maximum score is 42

4.2 Complete NIHSS Scoring Table

ItemAssessmentScoreCriteria
1a. Level of Consciousness (LOC)Alertness0Alert; keenly responsive
1Not alert; arousable by minor stimulation
2Not alert; requires repeated stimulation to attend, or obtunded requiring strong or painful stimulation
3Responds only with reflex motor or autonomic effects, or totally unresponsive, flaccid, areflexic
1b. LOC QuestionsAsk patient their age and the current month0Answers both questions correctly
1Answers one question correctly
2Answers neither question correctly
1c. LOC CommandsAsk patient to open/close eyes and grip/release non-paretic hand0Performs both tasks correctly
1Performs one task correctly
2Performs neither task correctly
2. Best GazeTest horizontal eye movements only (voluntary or reflexive)0Normal
1Partial gaze palsy; abnormal gaze in one or both eyes but forced deviation or total gaze paresis is not present
2Forced deviation or total gaze paresis not overcome by oculocephalic maneuver
3. Visual FieldsConfrontation visual field testing (all 4 quadrants tested by finger counting or visual threat)0No visual loss
1Partial hemianopia
2Complete hemianopia
3Bilateral hemianopia (blind, including cortical blindness)
4. Facial PalsyAsk patient to show teeth, raise eyebrows, close eyes tightly0Normal symmetrical movements
1Minor paralysis (flattened nasolabial fold, asymmetry on smiling)
2Partial paralysis (total or near-total lower face paralysis)
3Complete paralysis of one or both sides (absence of facial movement in upper and lower face)
5a. Left Arm MotorArm extended 90° (sitting) or 45° (supine) for 10 seconds0No drift; arm holds position for full 10 seconds
1Drift; arm holds position but drifts before full 10 seconds; does not hit bed
2Some effort against gravity; arm cannot maintain 90° (or 45°) but has some effort against gravity
3No effort against gravity; arm falls
4No movement
UNAmputation or joint fusion — explain
5b. Right Arm MotorSame as 5a for the right arm0-4, UNSame criteria as 5a
6a. Left Leg MotorLeg extended 30° (supine) for 5 seconds0No drift; leg holds position for full 5 seconds
1Drift; leg falls by end of 5-second period but does not hit bed
2Some effort against gravity; leg falls to bed within 5 seconds but has some effort against gravity
3No effort against gravity; leg falls to bed immediately
4No movement
UNAmputation or joint fusion — explain
6b. Right Leg MotorSame as 6a for the right leg0-4, UNSame criteria as 6a
7. Limb AtaxiaFinger-nose-finger and heel-shin tests on both sides0Absent
1Present in one limb
2Present in two or more limbs
UNAmputation or joint fusion — explain
8. SensoryPin-prick or withdrawal from noxious stimulus; test face, arm, trunk, leg on both sides0Normal; no sensory loss
1Mild-to-moderate sensory loss; patient feels pinprick is less sharp or is dull on the affected side, or loss of superficial pain with pinprick but patient is aware of being touched
2Severe or total sensory loss; patient is not aware of being touched on the face, arm, and leg
9. Best LanguageAssessed during entire examination — name items on a picture card, describe a picture scene, read a list of sentences0No aphasia; normal
1Mild-to-moderate aphasia; some obvious loss of fluency or comprehension without significant limitation on ideas expressed or form of expression
2Severe aphasia; all communication is through fragmentary expression; great need for inference, questioning, and guessing by the listener; limited range of information exchanged
3Mute, global aphasia; no usable speech or auditory comprehension
10. DysarthriaRead or repeat a list of words0Normal
1Mild-to-moderate dysarthria; patient slurs at least some words and can be understood with some difficulty
2Severe; patient’s speech so slurred as to be unintelligible in the absence of or out of proportion to any aphasia, or patient is mute/anarthric
UNIntubated or other physical barrier — explain
11. Extinction and Inattention (Neglect)Simultaneous visual and tactile bilateral stimulation0No abnormality
1Visual, tactile, auditory, spatial, or personal inattention or extinction to bilateral simultaneous stimulation in one of the sensory modalities
2Profound hemi-inattention or extinction to more than one modality; does not recognize own hand or orients to only one side of space

4.3 NIHSS Score Interpretation

NIHSS ScoreStroke SeverityClinical Correlation
0No stroke symptomsConsider TIA if symptoms resolved; MRI/DWI may show infarct
1-4Minor strokeMay be candidates for thrombolysis; low likelihood of LVO
5-15Moderate strokeStrong candidates for thrombolysis; evaluate for LVO if NIHSS ≥ 6
16-20Moderate-severe strokeHigh likelihood of LVO; thrombolysis + thrombectomy
21-42Severe strokeVery high likelihood of LVO; evaluate for large-territory infarct; consider treatment futility if large established infarct

4.4 Important NIHSS Caveats

  • The NIHSS is heavily weighted toward anterior (carotid) circulation deficits, particularly left hemisphere (language items contribute significantly to total score)
  • Posterior circulation strokes (basilar artery occlusion, cerebellar stroke) may present with low NIHSS scores despite devastating pathology — vertigo, ataxia, diplopia, and dysphagia are poorly captured
  • A “minor stroke” by NIHSS (score 1-4) may still be disabling if the deficit involves the dominant hand, speech, or gait
  • NIHSS can fluctuate — serial examinations are essential; a worsening NIHSS of ≥ 4 points suggests clinical deterioration
  • An NIHSS of 0 at presentation does not exclude acute ischemic stroke; approximately 10-15% of patients with acute infarction on DWI have an NIHSS of 0

5. Neuroimaging

5.1 Non-Contrast CT (NCCT) — The First-Line Study

Non-contrast CT of the head is the essential first imaging study in all patients with suspected acute stroke. Its primary role is to exclude hemorrhage and identify other stroke mimics (mass lesion, subdural hematoma). NCCT is rapid, widely available, and has near-100% sensitivity for acute hemorrhage.1 13

NCCT Findings in Acute Ischemic Stroke

FindingDescriptionTimingSignificance
NormalNo visible abnormalityFirst 6-12 hours (often)Does NOT exclude ischemic stroke; proceed with thrombolysis if clinically indicated
Hyperdense vessel signHyperdense MCA (or basilar) — direct visualization of thrombusWithin minutesSuggests LVO; correlates with CTA findings
Loss of gray-white differentiationSubtle loss of distinction between cortical gray matter and underlying white matter3-6 hoursEarly ischemic change; insular ribbon sign (loss of insular cortex gray-white differentiation)
Sulcal effacementEffacement of cortical sulci due to cytotoxic edema3-6 hoursEarly ischemic change
HypoattenuationFrank hypodensity (dark area) in vascular territory> 6 hours typicallyEstablished infarction; if involving > 1/3 MCA territory, associated with increased hemorrhagic transformation risk

5.2 Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS)

ASPECTS is a 10-point quantitative scoring system applied to NCCT (or CT angiography source images) to assess the extent of early ischemic changes in the middle cerebral artery territory. It is a critical tool for patient selection in endovascular thrombectomy.14

ASPECTS Regions

ASPECTS divides the MCA territory into 10 regions across two standardized axial CT levels:

Ganglionic Level (basal ganglia level):

RegionAbbreviationAnatomical Description
Caudate nucleusCHead of the caudate nucleus
Lentiform nucleusLGlobus pallidus and putamen
Internal capsuleICPosterior limb of the internal capsule
Insular cortexIInsular ribbon (cortex of the insula)
Anterior MCA cortex (ganglionic)M1Anterior MCA cortex at the ganglionic level (frontal operculum)
MCA cortex lateral to insular ribbon (ganglionic)M2MCA cortex lateral to the insular ribbon at the ganglionic level (anterior temporal lobe)
Posterior MCA cortex (ganglionic)M3Posterior MCA cortex at the ganglionic level (posterior temporal lobe)

Supraganglionic Level (above the basal ganglia):

RegionAbbreviationAnatomical Description
Anterior MCA cortex (supraganglionic)M4Anterior MCA cortex at the supraganglionic level
Lateral MCA cortex (supraganglionic)M5Lateral MCA cortex at the supraganglionic level
Posterior MCA cortex (supraganglionic)M6Posterior MCA cortex at the supraganglionic level (including superior parietal and posterior temporal regions)

ASPECTS Scoring

  • Start with 10 points (normal CT)
  • Subtract 1 point for each region showing early ischemic change (hypoattenuation, loss of gray-white differentiation, or sulcal effacement)
  • Score of 10 = normal CT, no early ischemic changes
  • Score of 0 = ischemic changes in all 10 MCA regions
ASPECTS ScoreInterpretationTreatment Implications
10Normal — no ischemic changesThrombolysis and/or thrombectomy if indicated
7-9Small early ischemic changesFavorable for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy
≥ 6Standard threshold for thrombectomy eligibilityThrombectomy indicated if LVO and other criteria met
4-5Moderate ischemic changesThrombectomy benefit uncertain; individual risk-benefit
0-3Extensive ischemic changes (> 1/3 MCA territory)Thrombectomy generally NOT recommended; high risk of hemorrhagic transformation

ASPECTS Limitations

  • Interrater reliability is moderate (kappa 0.5-0.7); automated ASPECTS software improves consistency
  • ASPECTS applies only to the MCA territory — not validated for ACA, PCA, or posterior circulation strokes
  • Early ischemic changes may be subtle or absent in the first 3-6 hours, leading to overestimation of the ASPECTS score
  • CT angiography source images may improve sensitivity for early ischemic changes compared to NCCT alone

5.3 CT Angiography (CTA)

CTA of the head and neck (arch to vertex) should be obtained in all patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke who are potential candidates for endovascular therapy. CTA should NOT delay IV thrombolysis if the patient is otherwise eligible.1 2

Key CTA Findings

FindingSignificance
Intracranial vessel occlusionIdentifies LVO (ICA, M1, M2, basilar); confirms thrombectomy target
Extracranial ICA stenosis/occlusionTandem lesions; may require carotid stenting during thrombectomy
Cervical artery dissectionDissection flap, intimal irregularity, pseudoaneurysm; important stroke etiology in young patients
Collateral circulationRobust collaterals predict smaller infarct core and better outcomes; poor collaterals predict larger infarcts

CTA Collateral Assessment

Collateral GradeDescriptionClinical Significance
0 (Absent)No collateral supply to the ischemic territoryPoor prognosis; large infarct core likely
1 (Poor)Collateral filling ≤ 50% of the ischemic territoryPoor prognosis
2 (Moderate)Collateral filling > 50% but < 100% of the ischemic territoryIntermediate prognosis
3 (Good)Complete collateral filling of the ischemic territoryFavorable prognosis; more salvageable tissue

5.4 CT Perfusion (CTP)

CT perfusion provides a tissue-level assessment of cerebral hemodynamics and is the primary imaging modality for selecting patients in the extended time window (6-24 hours) for endovascular thrombectomy. CTP generates parametric maps that distinguish the ischemic core (irreversibly damaged tissue) from the penumbra (at-risk but potentially salvageable tissue).15 16

CTP Parameters

ParameterDefinitionClinical Application
Cerebral blood flow (CBF)Volume of blood passing through brain tissue per unit time (mL/100g/min)CBF < 30% of contralateral normal = ischemic core (most commonly used threshold)
Cerebral blood volume (CBV)Total volume of blood in a given volume of brain tissue (mL/100g)Reduced CBV indicates irreversible infarction
Mean transit time (MTT)Average time for blood to pass through the capillary bed (seconds)Prolonged MTT indicates ischemic tissue (core + penumbra)
Time to peak (TTP)Time from contrast arrival to peak enhancementProlonged TTP indicates hypoperfused tissue
Time to maximum (Tmax)Time delay of the tissue residue function relative to the arterial input functionTmax > 6 seconds = critically hypoperfused tissue (used in DAWN/DEFUSE-3)

Perfusion Mismatch for Treatment Selection

ConceptDefinitionTreatment Implication
Ischemic coreTissue with CBF < 30% of normal (or CBV significantly reduced)Irreversibly damaged; not salvageable
Penumbra (critically hypoperfused)Tissue with Tmax > 6 seconds minus the ischemic corePotentially salvageable with reperfusion
Target mismatchMismatch ratio ≥ 1.8 AND absolute mismatch volume ≥ 15 mL AND ischemic core < 70 mLUsed in DEFUSE-3 to select patients for EVT in the 6-16 hour window

5.5 MRI in Acute Stroke

MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is the most sensitive imaging modality for detecting acute ischemic stroke, with sensitivity > 95% within minutes of symptom onset. However, MRI is not routinely used as the first-line imaging study in acute stroke due to longer acquisition time and limited availability.1 17

Key MRI Sequences in Acute Stroke

SequenceFindingsClinical Application
DWI (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging)Restricted diffusion (bright signal) in acute infarct coreMost sensitive for acute ischemia; positive within minutes
ADC (Apparent Diffusion Coefficient) mapDark signal (low ADC) in acute infarctConfirms DWI findings; distinguishes acute from chronic (T2 shine-through)
FLAIR (Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery)Hyperintense signal in subacute/chronic infarct; vessel hyperintensityDWI-FLAIR mismatch: DWI positive but FLAIR negative suggests onset < 4.5 hours (used for wake-up stroke selection)
GRE/SWI (Gradient Echo/Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging)Blooming artifact from blood products; microbleedsDetects hemorrhage; microbleed burden may influence thrombolysis risk assessment
MRA (MR Angiography)Vessel occlusion, stenosisAlternative to CTA for vessel imaging
PWI (Perfusion-Weighted Imaging)Perfusion maps (similar to CTP)DWI-PWI mismatch identifies salvageable tissue

DWI-FLAIR Mismatch for Wake-Up Stroke

In patients who awaken with stroke symptoms (unknown time of onset), the DWI-FLAIR mismatch concept identifies patients whose stroke likely occurred within the thrombolysis treatment window:18

  • DWI positive + FLAIR negative = likely onset within 4.5 hours → may be eligible for IV thrombolysis (supported by the WAKE-UP trial)
  • DWI positive + FLAIR positive = likely onset > 4.5 hours → thrombolysis eligibility depends on perfusion imaging and extended-window criteria

6. Door-to-Imaging Workflow

Patient with suspected acute stroke
│
├─ ALL PATIENTS: Non-contrast CT head (door-to-CT ≤ 20 min)
│   ├─ Hemorrhage present → ICH or SAH pathway
│   └─ No hemorrhage → Acute ischemic stroke pathway
│       │
│       ├─ LKW 0–4.5 hours: Evaluate for IV thrombolysis
│       │   └─ CTA head/neck (do not delay tPA for CTA)
│       │       └─ LVO identified → Evaluate for thrombectomy
│       │
│       ├─ LKW 4.5–24 hours (or unknown/wake-up):
│       │   ├─ CTA head/neck → LVO identified?
│       │   ├─ CT perfusion or MRI DWI/PWI → Mismatch analysis
│       │   └─ If mismatch criteria met → Evaluate for thrombectomy
│       │       (DAWN 6-24h or DEFUSE-3 6-16h criteria)
│       │
│       └─ Wake-up stroke with unknown onset:
│           ├─ MRI: DWI-FLAIR mismatch → If present, consider IV thrombolysis
│           │   (WAKE-UP trial criteria)
│           └─ CTP: Perfusion mismatch → If present, consider EVT

References


  1. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. “Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines.” Stroke. 2019;50(12):e344-e418. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000211 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, et al. “Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials.” Lancet. 2016;387(10029):1723-1731. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00163-X ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. Greenberg SM, Ziai WC, Cordonnier C, et al. “2022 Guideline for Management of Patients With Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.” Stroke. 2022;53(7):e282-e361. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000407 ↩︎

  4. Hoh BL, Ko NU, Amin-Hanjani S, et al. “2023 Guideline for the Management of Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.” Stroke. 2023;54(7):e314-e370. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000436 ↩︎

  5. Easton JD, Saver JL, Albers GW, et al. “Definition and evaluation of transient ischemic attack.” Stroke. 2009;40(6):2276-2293. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.192218 ↩︎

  6. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, et al. “Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals.” Stroke. 2013;44(3):870-947. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0b013e318284056a ↩︎ ↩︎

  7. Kothari RU, Pancioli A, Liu T, et al. “Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale: reproducibility and validity.” Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33(4):373-378. DOI: 10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70299-4 ↩︎

  8. Nazliel B, Starkman S, Liebeskind DS, et al. “A brief prehospital stroke severity scale identifies ischemic stroke patients harboring persisting large arterial occlusions.” Stroke. 2008;39(8):2264-2267. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.508127 ↩︎

  9. Perez de la Ossa N, Carrera D, Gorchs M, et al. “Design and validation of a prehospital stroke scale to predict large arterial occlusion: the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation Scale.” Stroke. 2014;45(1):87-91. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003071 ↩︎

  10. Lima FO, Silva GS, Furie KL, et al. “Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination: a simple and accurate prehospital scale to detect large vessel occlusion strokes.” Stroke. 2016;47(8):1997-2002. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.013301 ↩︎

  11. Teleb MS, Ver Hage A, Carter J, et al. “Stroke vision, aphasia, neglect (VAN) assessment — a novel emergent large vessel occlusion screening tool: pilot study and comparison with current clinical severity indices.” J NeuroIntervent Surg. 2017;9(2):122-126. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012131 ↩︎

  12. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, et al. “Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale.” Stroke. 1989;20(7):864-870. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864 ↩︎

  13. Latchaw RE, Alberts MJ, Lev MH, et al. “Recommendations for imaging of acute ischemic stroke: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.” Stroke. 2009;40(11):3646-3678. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.192616 ↩︎

  14. Barber PA, Demchuk AM, Zhang J, Buchan AM. “Validity and reliability of a quantitative computed tomography score in predicting outcome of hyperacute stroke before thrombolytic therapy. ASPECTS Study Group.” Lancet. 2000;355(9216):1670-1674. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02237-6 ↩︎

  15. Nogueira RG, Jadhav AP, Haussen DC, et al. “Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct.” N Engl J Med. 2018;378(1):11-21. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706442 ↩︎

  16. Albers GW, Marks MP, Kemp S, et al. “Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging.” N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):708-718. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713973 ↩︎

  17. Chalela JA, Kidwell CS, Nentwich LM, et al. “Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in emergency assessment of patients with suspected acute stroke: a prospective comparison.” Lancet. 2007;369(9558):293-298. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60151-2 ↩︎

  18. Thomalla G, Simonsen CZ, Boutitie F, et al. “MRI-Guided Thrombolysis for Stroke with Unknown Time of Onset.” N Engl J Med. 2018;379(7):611-622. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804355 ↩︎