Acute Stroke Management — Part 3: Endovascular Thrombectomy & Blood Pressure Management
EVT indications, landmark trials, extended window therapy (DAWN, DEFUSE-3), anesthesia considerations, and comprehensive blood pressure management with antihypertensive dosing tables.
1. Endovascular Thrombectomy — Overview
Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), also termed mechanical thrombectomy, is the removal of an intracranial thrombus via a catheter-based approach, most commonly using stent-retriever or aspiration devices. Five landmark randomized controlled trials published in 2015 — collectively known as the “Big Five” — established EVT as the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation. A subsequent individual patient-level meta-analysis confirmed a number needed to treat (NNT) of approximately 2.6 to reduce disability by at least one level on the modified Rankin Scale.1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Standard Eligibility Criteria (0-6 Hour Window)
The standard eligibility criteria for EVT within 6 hours of symptom onset are derived from the 2015 landmark trials:1 7
2.1 Core Eligibility Criteria
| Criterion | Details |
|---|---|
| Stroke type | Acute ischemic stroke |
| Vessel occlusion | Confirmed LVO on CTA or MRA: intracranial ICA, M1 segment of MCA, or (in selected cases) proximal M2 segment |
| Time window | Symptom onset (or last known well) to groin puncture ≤ 6 hours |
| Age | ≥ 18 years |
| NIHSS | ≥ 6 (though lower thresholds considered in selected patients) |
| ASPECTS | ≥ 6 on NCCT (indicating limited early ischemic change) |
| Pre-stroke functional status | Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-1 (functionally independent) — though mRS 0-2 accepted in practice |
| IV thrombolysis | Should be administered if eligible; EVT should NOT be delayed for thrombolysis; “bridging therapy” (IV tPA + EVT) is the standard approach for eligible patients |
2.2 The 2015 Landmark Trials
| Trial | N | Key Design Features | Primary Outcome (mRS 0-2 at 90 days) | NNT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MR CLEAN (Netherlands, 2014) | 500 | First positive trial; CTA-confirmed LVO; stent retriever or aspiration | 32.6% vs 19.1% (aOR 1.67) | 7.4 |
| ESCAPE (Canada, 2015) | 316 | Required moderate-good collaterals on CTA; ASPECTS ≥ 6; rapid workflow | 53.0% vs 29.3% (aOR 2.6) | 4.2 |
| EXTEND-IA (Australia, 2015) | 70 | CT perfusion-selected; target mismatch; Solitaire stent retriever | 71% vs 40% (p = 0.01) | 3.2 |
| SWIFT PRIME (International, 2015) | 196 | CTA or CTP-selected; excluded large core; Solitaire stent retriever | 60% vs 35% (p < 0.001) | 4.0 |
| REVASCAT (Spain, 2015) | 206 | CTA-confirmed ICA or M1 occlusion; ASPECTS ≥ 7; up to 8 hours | 43.7% vs 28.2% (aOR 1.7) | 6.5 |
2.3 HERMES Individual Patient Meta-Analysis
The HERMES (Highly Effective Reperfusion evaluated in Multiple Endovascular Stroke Trials) collaboration pooled individual patient data from all five 2015 trials (n = 1,287):6
| Finding | Result |
|---|---|
| Functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 90 days | 46.0% EVT vs 26.5% control; aOR 2.49 (95% CI 1.76-3.53) |
| Shift across entire mRS | Common OR 2.26 favoring EVT |
| NNT for reduced disability by ≥ 1 mRS level | 2.6 |
| Mortality | 15.3% EVT vs 18.9% control (not significant) |
| sICH | 4.4% EVT vs 4.3% control (no difference) |
| Benefit across subgroups | Benefit consistent across age, sex, NIHSS, and ASPECTS subgroups; benefit greatest with earlier treatment |
3. Extended Window Thrombectomy (6-24 Hours)
Two landmark trials — DAWN and DEFUSE-3 — established that EVT is beneficial in selected patients up to 24 hours from last known well, using advanced imaging to identify patients with salvageable brain tissue (clinical-imaging mismatch or perfusion mismatch).8 9
3.1 DAWN Trial (6-24 Hours)
| Parameter | Details |
|---|---|
| Full name | DWI or CTP Assessment with Clinical Mismatch in the Triage of Wake Up and Late Presenting Strokes Undergoing Neurointervention |
| Window | 6-24 hours from last known well |
| Selection | Clinical-imaging mismatch: disproportionately severe clinical deficit relative to infarct core volume |
| Imaging | CTP or MRI-DWI to determine infarct core volume (using automated RAPID software) |
| Key result | mRS 0-2 at 90 days: 49% (EVT) vs 13% (control); Bayesian posterior probability of superiority > 0.999 |
| NNT | 2.8 |
DAWN Mismatch Criteria
| Group | Age | NIHSS | Infarct Core (mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | ≥ 80 years | ≥ 10 | < 21 mL |
| Group B | < 80 years | ≥ 10 | < 31 mL |
| Group C | < 80 years | ≥ 20 | 31-51 mL |
Patients must meet one of the above group criteria. The essential concept is that the clinical deficit (NIHSS) is severe, but the imaging shows a relatively small infarct core — indicating a large volume of penumbral tissue that can be salvaged.
3.2 DEFUSE-3 Trial (6-16 Hours)
| Parameter | Details |
|---|---|
| Full name | Endovascular Therapy Following Imaging Evaluation for Ischemic Stroke 3 |
| Window | 6-16 hours from last known well |
| Selection | Perfusion imaging mismatch (target mismatch profile) |
| Imaging | CTP or MRI-PWI using automated RAPID software |
| Key result | mRS 0-2 at 90 days: 45% (EVT) vs 17% (control); RR 2.67 (p < 0.001) |
| NNT | 3.6 |
DEFUSE-3 Target Mismatch Criteria
| Parameter | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Ischemic core volume | < 70 mL (CBF < 30% of normal on CTP, or DWI lesion on MRI) |
| Critically hypoperfused volume | Tmax > 6 seconds |
| Mismatch ratio | ≥ 1.8 (hypoperfused volume / core volume) |
| Absolute mismatch volume | ≥ 15 mL (hypoperfused volume minus core volume) |
3.3 Extended Window Summary
| Trial | Window | Selection Method | mRS 0-2 (EVT vs Control) | NNT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAWN | 6-24 hours | Clinical-core mismatch (NIHSS vs core volume) | 49% vs 13% | 2.8 |
| DEFUSE-3 | 6-16 hours | Perfusion mismatch (Tmax > 6s volume vs core) | 45% vs 17% | 3.6 |
Clinical implication: Patients presenting late (6-24 hours) or with unknown onset should undergo advanced imaging (CTP or MRI with perfusion). If they meet DAWN or DEFUSE-3 mismatch criteria, EVT should be performed. Time alone does NOT exclude patients from treatment.
4. Expanding Indications for EVT
4.1 M2 Occlusions
The 2015 landmark trials primarily enrolled patients with ICA or M1 occlusions. Proximal M2 occlusions were variably included. Observational data and subgroup analyses suggest benefit of EVT in proximal M2 occlusions producing significant deficits (NIHSS ≥ 6), though the evidence is less robust than for M1/ICA. Treatment should be individualized.7 10
4.2 Large Core Infarcts (ASPECTS < 6)
Patients with large ischemic cores were excluded from the original trials. Recent trials have evaluated EVT in patients with large cores:11 12
| Trial | Design | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|
| RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT (2022) | EVT vs medical management; ASPECTS 3-5; 0-24 hours | mRS 0-3 at 90 days: 31% (EVT) vs 12.7% (control); p = 0.006 |
| SELECT2 (2023) | EVT vs medical management; large core (CBF < 30% volume ≥ 50 mL); 0-24 hours | Median mRS shift favoring EVT (OR 1.51, p < 0.001) |
| ANGEL-ASPECT (2023) | EVT vs medical management; ASPECTS 3-5 or core 70-100 mL; 0-24 hours | mRS 0-3 at 90 days: 30% (EVT) vs 11.6% (control) |
Clinical implication: EVT may benefit selected patients with large core infarcts (ASPECTS 3-5), particularly younger patients with good premorbid function. However, the benefit-risk ratio is less favorable than in patients with smaller cores, and mortality rates are higher in both treatment and control groups.
4.3 Posterior Circulation (Basilar Artery Occlusion)
Basilar artery occlusion (BAO) carries a mortality rate of 80-90% without treatment. Two major RCTs have evaluated EVT for BAO:13 14
| Trial | Year | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| BEST (2020) | Pragmatic RCT; China | mRS 0-3: 42% (EVT) vs 32% (control); did not reach significance; significant crossover |
| ATTENTION (2022) | RCT; China; BAO within 12 hours | mRS 0-3 at 90 days: 46% (EVT) vs 23% (control); p < 0.001 |
| BAOCHE (2022) | RCT; China; BAO 6-24 hours | mRS 0-3 at 90 days: 46% (EVT) vs 24% (control); p < 0.001 |
Current recommendation: EVT is reasonable for acute BAO in selected patients, particularly within 24 hours of symptom onset, when advanced imaging demonstrates potentially salvageable tissue.
4.4 Low NIHSS (< 6) with LVO
Patients with LVO but relatively mild symptoms (NIHSS < 6) are at high risk of early neurological deterioration. The MR CLEAN-NO IV sub-study and ongoing trials (MOSTE, IN EXTREMIS) are evaluating EVT in this population. Current practice is individualized based on the specific deficit and anticipated clinical trajectory.7
5. Time Targets and Workflow
5.1 Door-to-Treatment Time Benchmarks
| Metric | Target |
|---|---|
| Door-to-CT | ≤ 20 minutes |
| Door-to-CTA interpretation | ≤ 30 minutes |
| Door-to-needle (IV tPA) | ≤ 45 minutes (goal); ≤ 60 minutes (standard) |
| Door-to-groin puncture | ≤ 90 minutes (at EVT-capable center) |
| Door-in-door-out (DIDO) at referring center | ≤ 60 minutes (for transfer patients) |
| Picture-to-puncture | ≤ 60 minutes (from CTA confirming LVO to groin) |
| Onset-to-reperfusion | ≤ 6 hours (standard window) |
5.2 Workflow Optimization — Parallel Processing
- Do NOT delay IV thrombolysis for CTA; administer bolus, then go to CT scanner
- IV thrombolysis and CTA should occur in parallel; tPA infusion continues during CTA acquisition
- Activate neurointerventional team upon CTA confirmation of LVO (or based on clinical suspicion before CTA if NIHSS ≥ 10)
- Prepare angiography suite while patient is in CT scanner
- Transfer directly from CT to angiography — avoid returning to ED if LVO confirmed
- Bridge therapy: IV tPA + EVT is the standard; there is NO evidence that IV tPA should be withheld in EVT-eligible patients (confirmed by the MR CLEAN-NO IV and DIRECT-MT trials)15 16
5.3 Drip-and-Ship vs. Direct-to-Mothership
| Model | Description | Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Drip-and-ship | IV tPA given at primary stroke center (PSC), then transfer to comprehensive stroke center (CSC) for EVT | Standard model when PSC is closest; minimize DIDO time; tenecteplase preferred (single bolus) |
| Direct-to-mothership | Bypass PSC; transport directly to CSC | Preferred if transport time difference is < 15-30 minutes; faster EVT but may delay IV tPA |
| Flying/mobile stroke unit | CT scanner on ambulance; tPA given in field | Shown to reduce time-to-treatment; limited availability |
6. Anesthesia for Thrombectomy — GA vs. Conscious Sedation
The choice of anesthesia during EVT has been a subject of significant debate. Retrospective studies suggested worse outcomes with general anesthesia (GA), likely confounded by selection bias (sicker patients received GA). Three RCTs addressed this question:17 18 19
6.1 Key Trials
| Trial | Year | N | Comparison | Primary Outcome (mRS 0-2 at 90 days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIESTA | 2016 | 150 | GA vs conscious sedation | 37.0% vs 18.2% (favoring GA; p = 0.01) |
| AnStroke | 2017 | 90 | GA vs conscious sedation | 40% vs 32% (not significant) |
| GOLIATH | 2017 | 128 | GA vs conscious sedation | 42.9% vs 32.3% (favoring GA; not statistically significant) |
6.2 Meta-Analysis and Pooled Findings
A pooled analysis of these three trials found:20
| Outcome | GA | Conscious Sedation | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| mRS 0-2 at 90 days | ~40% | ~26% | Trend favoring GA; not statistically significant in all individual trials |
| TICI 2b-3 (successful reperfusion) | ~76% | ~58% | Higher reperfusion rates with GA (less patient movement) |
| Mortality | Similar | Similar | No significant difference |
| Pneumonia | Higher with GA | Lower | Potential disadvantage of GA |
6.3 Current Recommendations
- Either GA or conscious sedation is acceptable for EVT
- GA may be preferred when: the patient is agitated or unable to cooperate; posterior circulation procedure; complex anatomy anticipated; the anesthesia team can achieve rapid induction without significant delays
- Conscious sedation may be preferred when: rapid initiation is needed and GA would cause delay; hemodynamic stability is a concern; shorter procedure anticipated
- Critical principle: The choice of anesthesia should NOT delay the procedure. Induction-to-groin time should be minimized
- Blood pressure management under GA is critical: Avoid hypotension; maintain SBP > 140 mmHg (or within 10-20% of baseline) during the procedure; hypotension under GA is associated with worse outcomes17 18
7. Reperfusion Grading — TICI Scale
The Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale is the standard angiographic grading system for assessing reperfusion after EVT:21
| TICI Grade | Description | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No perfusion; no antegrade flow beyond occlusion | Complete failure |
| 1 | Penetration with minimal perfusion; contrast passes but fails to opacify the entire vascular bed | Essentially failed |
| 2a | Partial filling; < 50% of the expected territory is perfused | Partial reperfusion |
| 2b | Substantial filling; ≥ 50% but < 100% of the expected territory is perfused | Successful reperfusion (included with 2c/3 as “good outcome”) |
| 2c | Near-complete perfusion; slow flow in distal territory or small distal emboli | Successful reperfusion |
| 3 | Complete perfusion; full filling of all expected territory with normal flow | Optimal result |
Target: TICI 2b-3 (successful reperfusion) should be achieved in ≥ 80% of procedures (quality benchmark).
8. Blood Pressure Management in Acute Stroke — Comprehensive Guide
Blood pressure management in acute stroke varies significantly depending on stroke type, treatment received, and time from onset. This section provides a unified reference for BP management across all acute stroke scenarios.7 22 23
8.1 Blood Pressure Targets by Stroke Type and Treatment
| Clinical Scenario | SBP Target | DBP Target | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acute ischemic stroke — eligible for IV thrombolysis (pre-treatment) | < 185 mmHg | < 110 mmHg | Must be controlled before alteplase/TNK administration |
| Acute ischemic stroke — during and 24 hours after IV thrombolysis | ≤ 180 mmHg | ≤ 105 mmHg | Reduces risk of sICH; strict monitoring required |
| Acute ischemic stroke — NOT treated with thrombolysis or EVT; BP > 220/120 | Reduce by 15% in first 24 hours | Same | Permissive hypertension; avoid aggressive lowering which can worsen ischemia in the penumbra |
| Acute ischemic stroke — NOT treated; BP < 220/120 | No treatment unless end-organ damage | Same | Permissive hypertension is the standard of care |
| Acute ischemic stroke — post-EVT, successful reperfusion (TICI 2b-3) | ≤ 180/105 (or ≤ 140 per institutional protocol) | — | Lower targets may reduce hemorrhagic transformation risk; BP-TARGET and ENCHANTED2/MT trials evaluating SBP < 140 |
| Acute ischemic stroke — post-EVT, failed reperfusion | Permissive hypertension | — | Maintain perfusion to the ischemic territory |
| Intracerebral hemorrhage — within 6 hours of onset | < 140 mmHg (if presenting SBP 150-220) | — | Supported by INTERACT2; reduces hematoma expansion; safe and may improve outcomes |
| Intracerebral hemorrhage — presenting SBP > 220 | Lower cautiously; avoid SBP < 130 | — | Very aggressive lowering may worsen perihematomal ischemia |
| Subarachnoid hemorrhage — before aneurysm secured | < 160 mmHg (institutional variation: < 140 to < 160) | — | Reduce rebleeding risk while maintaining cerebral perfusion |
| Subarachnoid hemorrhage — after aneurysm secured | Individualize; avoid hypotension | — | Target euvolemia and normotension; higher BP may be needed if vasospasm develops |
8.2 Antihypertensive Agents — Dosing Table
| Agent | Class | Dose | Onset | Duration | Advantages | Cautions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labetalol | Alpha/beta-blocker | 10-20 mg IV push over 1-2 min; repeat every 10-20 min; max 300 mg total. OR infusion: 2-8 mg/min | 5-10 min | 2-6 hours | Reliable; widely available; does not increase ICP | Avoid in heart block (2nd/3rd degree), severe bradycardia, severe asthma/COPD, decompensated HF |
| Nicardipine | Dihydropyridine CCB | 5 mg/h IV infusion; titrate by 2.5 mg/h every 5-15 min; max 15 mg/h | 5-15 min | 30-40 min after stopping (prolonged for long infusions) | Predictable dose-response; no rebound hypertension; does not increase ICP | Reflex tachycardia; caution in severe aortic stenosis; contains propylene glycol |
| Clevidipine | Dihydropyridine CCB | 1-2 mg/h IV infusion; double every 90 sec initially; max 32 mg/h (short term) | 1-2 min | 5-15 min | Ultra-short acting; very precise titration; ideal for minute-to-minute control | Lipid emulsion (soybean oil, egg lecithin) — contraindicated in soy/egg allergy, severe lipid metabolism disorders; max 1000 mL (or ~72 hours) per infusion |
| Hydralazine | Direct vasodilator | 10-20 mg IV every 20-30 min; max 40 mg per dose | 10-30 min | 2-6 hours | Inexpensive; widely available | Unpredictable response; reflex tachycardia; increases ICP (caution in ICH/SAH); generally NOT preferred |
| Enalaprilat | ACE inhibitor | 1.25 mg IV over 5 min; repeat every 6 hours; max 5 mg per dose | 15-30 min | 6-12 hours | No reflex tachycardia | Unpredictable response; risk of hypotension (especially if volume-depleted); contraindicated if angioedema risk |
| Sodium nitroprusside | Nitric oxide donor | 0.25-10 μg/kg/min IV infusion | Immediate | 1-2 min after stopping | Most potent; immediate effect | Increases ICP — generally AVOIDED in stroke; cyanide toxicity risk with prolonged use; requires arterial line; last resort |
| Fenoldopam | Dopamine-1 agonist | 0.1-1.6 μg/kg/min IV infusion | 5-15 min | 30-60 min | Increases renal blood flow | Not widely used for stroke; may increase ICP |
| Phentolamine | Alpha-blocker | 5-15 mg IV bolus | 1-2 min | 15-30 min | Rapid onset | Reserved for catecholamine crisis (pheochromocytoma, cocaine, amphetamine-related hypertension) |
8.3 Permissive Hypertension in Acute Ischemic Stroke
For patients with acute ischemic stroke who are NOT candidates for thrombolysis or EVT:7
- SBP < 220 and DBP < 120: Do NOT initiate antihypertensive therapy in the first 24-48 hours unless there is a concurrent hypertensive emergency (aortic dissection, acute MI, hypertensive encephalopathy, severe heart failure, or preeclampsia/eclampsia)
- SBP ≥ 220 or DBP ≥ 120: Reasonable to reduce blood pressure by 15% over the first 24 hours
- Rationale: Elevated blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke is typically a compensatory response to maintain perfusion through collateral channels to the ischemic penumbra. Aggressive blood pressure lowering can worsen ischemia and enlarge the infarct
- When to restart home antihypertensives: Generally safe to restart oral antihypertensives at 24-48 hours if the patient is neurologically stable and can tolerate oral medications
8.4 Blood Pressure Management in ICH
See Part 4, Section 4 for detailed ICH-specific blood pressure management including the INTERACT2 and ATACH-2 evidence.
9. Post-Thrombectomy Care
9.1 Immediate Post-Procedure Management
| Domain | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Neuro checks | Every 15 minutes × 2 hours, then every 30 minutes × 6 hours, then every hour × 16 hours |
| BP monitoring | Continuous arterial line monitoring preferred; targets per Section 8.1 |
| Groin access site | Monitor for hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, retroperitoneal bleed; bed rest per institutional protocol (typically 2-6 hours for femoral access) |
| Follow-up imaging | NCCT at 24 hours (sooner if clinical deterioration); assess for hemorrhagic transformation |
| Antithrombotics | If IV tPA was given: withhold antithrombotics for 24 hours post-tPA. If no IV tPA: aspirin 325 mg per NG/PO at 24 hours or sooner if 24h CT is clean (institutional variation) |
| Dual antiplatelet | If carotid stent placed during EVT: load with clopidogrel 300-600 mg + aspirin 325 mg; then aspirin 81 mg + clopidogrel 75 mg daily |
| DVT prophylaxis | Intermittent pneumatic compression devices immediately; pharmacologic prophylaxis after imaging confirms no hemorrhage |
| Dysphagia screen | Before any oral intake |
9.2 Complications of EVT
| Complication | Incidence | Management |
|---|---|---|
| Symptomatic ICH | 4-7% | Stop antithrombotics; reverse coagulopathy; BP control; neurosurgical consultation |
| Embolization to new territory (ENT) | 1-9% | May require additional thrombectomy passes; antiplatelet therapy |
| Vessel dissection | 1-4% | Intracranial stenting if flow-limiting; anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy |
| Vessel perforation | < 1% | Immediate recognition on angiography; balloon occlusion; neurosurgical consultation |
| Access site complications | 3-5% | Hematoma: manual compression; pseudoaneurysm: thrombin injection or surgical repair; retroperitoneal bleed: fluid resuscitation, transfusion, vascular surgery consultation |
| Contrast-induced nephropathy | ~5% | IV hydration; monitor creatinine |
| Reperfusion injury / cerebral edema | Variable | BP management; osmotic therapy if needed; decompressive craniectomy if malignant edema |
10. Decompressive Craniectomy for Malignant MCA Infarction
Malignant MCA infarction occurs in approximately 5-10% of ischemic strokes involving the MCA territory, typically producing massive cerebral edema with midline shift and transtentorial herniation. Without treatment, mortality exceeds 80%. Three European RCTs (DECIMAL, DESTINY, HAMLET) and their pooled analysis established that early decompressive hemicraniectomy significantly reduces mortality and improves functional outcomes in selected patients.24 25
10.1 Indications for Decompressive Hemicraniectomy
| Criterion | Details |
|---|---|
| Age | ≤ 60 years (strongest evidence; benefit in patients > 60 is more limited — see DESTINY II) |
| Clinical | Deteriorating level of consciousness attributable to cerebral edema |
| NIHSS | ≥ 15 (typically much higher) |
| Imaging | Infarction involving ≥ 50% of the MCA territory on CT or DWI volume > 145 mL |
| Timing | Within 48 hours of symptom onset (earlier is better; ideally before herniation) |
| Pre-stroke function | No significant pre-stroke disability |
10.2 Outcomes
| Outcome | Hemicraniectomy | Medical Management | NNT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality at 1 year | ~22% | ~71% | ~2 |
| mRS 0-3 at 1 year | ~43% | ~21% | ~4.5 |
| mRS ≤ 4 (moderate disability or better) | ~75% | ~24% | ~2 |
Important note: While decompressive craniectomy dramatically reduces mortality, many survivors have significant disability (mRS 4 = moderate-severe disability). Pre-procedure goals of care discussions with the patient (if possible) and family are essential, including realistic expectations about functional outcomes.
References
Berkhemer OA, Fransen PSS, Beumer D, et al. “A Randomized Trial of Intraarterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke (MR CLEAN).” N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):11-20. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411587 ↩︎ ↩︎
Goyal M, Demchuk AM, Menon BK, et al. “Randomized Assessment of Rapid Endovascular Treatment of Ischemic Stroke (ESCAPE).” N Engl J Med. 2015;372(11):1019-1030. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414905 ↩︎
Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Kleinig TJ, et al. “Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke with Perfusion-Imaging Selection (EXTEND-IA).” N Engl J Med. 2015;372(11):1009-1018. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414792 ↩︎
Saver JL, Goyal M, Bonafe A, et al. “Stent-Retriever Thrombectomy after Intravenous t-PA vs. t-PA Alone in Stroke (SWIFT PRIME).” N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2285-2295. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415061 ↩︎
Jovin TG, Chamorro A, Cobo E, et al. “Thrombectomy within 8 Hours after Symptom Onset in Ischemic Stroke (REVASCAT).” N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2296-2306. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503780 ↩︎
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 (HERMES).” Lancet. 2016;387(10029):1723-1731. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00163-X ↩︎ ↩︎
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 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Nogueira RG, Jadhav AP, Haussen DC, et al. “Thrombectomy 6 to 24 Hours after Stroke with a Mismatch between Deficit and Infarct (DAWN).” N Engl J Med. 2018;378(1):11-21. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706442 ↩︎
Albers GW, Marks MP, Kemp S, et al. “Thrombectomy for Stroke at 6 to 16 Hours with Selection by Perfusion Imaging (DEFUSE-3).” N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):708-718. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713973 ↩︎
Turc G, Bhogal P, Fischer U, et al. “European Stroke Organisation (ESO) — European Society for Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy (ESMINT) Guidelines on Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischaemic Stroke.” Eur Stroke J. 2019;4(1):6-12. DOI: 10.1177/2396987319832140 ↩︎
Yoshimura S, Sakai N, Uchida K, et al. “Endovascular Therapy for Acute Stroke with a Large Ischemic Region (RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT).” N Engl J Med. 2022;386(14):1303-1313. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2118191 ↩︎
Sarraj A, Hassan AE, Abraham MG, et al. “Trial of Endovascular Thrombectomy for Large Ischemic Strokes (SELECT2).” N Engl J Med. 2023;388(14):1259-1271. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2214403 ↩︎
Liu X, Dai Q, Ye R, et al. “Endovascular treatment versus standard medical treatment for vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (BEST): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.” Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(2):115-122. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30395-3 ↩︎
Tao C, Nogueira RG, Zhu Y, et al. “Trial of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Basilar-Artery Occlusion (ATTENTION).” N Engl J Med. 2022;387(15):1361-1372. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2206317 ↩︎
LeCouffe NE, Kappelhof M, Treurniet KM, et al. “A Randomized Trial of Intravenous Alteplase before Endovascular Treatment for Stroke (MR CLEAN-NO IV).” N Engl J Med. 2021;385(20):1833-1844. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107727 ↩︎
Yang P, Zhang Y, Zhang L, et al. “Endovascular Thrombectomy with or without Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Stroke (DIRECT-MT).” N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):1981-1993. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001123 ↩︎
Schonenberger S, Uhlmann L, Hacke W, et al. “Effect of Conscious Sedation vs General Anesthesia on Early Neurological Improvement Among Patients With Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy (SIESTA).” JAMA. 2016;316(19):1986-1996. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.16623 ↩︎ ↩︎
Lowhagen Henden P, Rentzos A, Engstrom K, et al. “General Anesthesia Versus Conscious Sedation for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: The AnStroke Trial.” Stroke. 2017;48(6):1601-1607. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.016554 ↩︎ ↩︎
Simonsen CZ, Yoo AJ, Sørensen LH, et al. “Effect of General Anesthesia and Conscious Sedation During Endovascular Therapy on Infarct Growth and Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke (GOLIATH).” JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(4):470-477. DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.4474 ↩︎
Campbell BCV, van Zwam WH, Goyal M, et al. “Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.” Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(1):47-53. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30407-6 ↩︎
Higashida RT, Furlan AJ, Roberts H, et al. “Trial design and reporting standards for intra-arterial cerebral thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.” Stroke. 2003;34(8):e109-e137. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000082721.62796.09 ↩︎
Anderson CS, Heeley E, Huang Y, et al. “Rapid blood-pressure lowering in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (INTERACT2).” N Engl J Med. 2013;368(25):2355-2365. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214609 ↩︎
Qureshi AI, Palesch YY, Barsan WG, et al. “Intensive Blood-Pressure Lowering in Patients with Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage (ATACH-2).” N Engl J Med. 2016;375(11):1033-1043. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603460 ↩︎
Vahedi K, Hofmeijer J, Juettler E, et al. “Early decompressive surgery in malignant infarction of the middle cerebral artery: a pooled analysis of three randomised controlled trials.” Lancet Neurol. 2007;6(3):215-222. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70036-4 ↩︎
Juttler E, Unterberg A, Woitzik J, et al. “Hemicraniectomy in Older Patients with Extensive Middle-Cerebral-Artery Stroke (DESTINY II).” N Engl J Med. 2014;370(12):1091-1100. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311367 ↩︎