No abstract

The purpose of the European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Conference is to provide updates on recent stroke therapy research and to give an opportunity for the participants to discuss how these results may be implemented into clinical routine. The meeting started 22 years ago as Karolinska Stroke Update, but since 2014 it is a joint conference with European Stroke Organisation. Importantly, it provides a platform for discussion on the European Stroke Organisation guidelines process and on recommendations to the European Stroke Organisation guidelines committee on specific topics. By this, it adds a direct influence from stroke professionals otherwise not involved in committees and work groups on the guideline procedure. The discussions at the conference may also inspire new guidelines when motivated. The topics raised at the meeting are selected by the scientific programme committee mainly based on recent important scientific publications. This year's European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Meeting was held in Stockholm on 11-13 November 2018. There were 11 scientific sessions discussed in the meeting including two short sessions. Each session except the short sessions produced a consensus statement (Full version with background, issues, conclusions and references are published as web-material and at www.eso-karolinska.org and http://eso-stroke.org) and recommendations which were prepared by a writing committee consisting of session chair(s), scientific secretary and speakers. These statements were presented to the 250 participants of the meeting. In the open meeting, general participants commented on the consensus statement and recommendations and the final document were adjusted based on the discussion from the general participants Recommendations (grade of evidence) were graded according to the 1998 Karolinska Stroke Update meeting with regard to the strength of evidence. Grade A Evidence: Strong support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (at least one randomised controlled trial plus one statistical review). Grade B Evidence: Support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (one randomised controlled trial or one statistical review). Grade C Evidence: No reasonable support from randomised controlled trials, recommendations based on small randomised and/or non-randomised controlled trials evidence.The full document which is available as online supplement contains background, issues, conclusions and references used to establish ESO-Karolinska recommendations for each session (except for the short sessions).

Background and purpose Patients with stroke mimics (SM), i.e. conditions with stroke‐like symptoms, may risk harm if treated with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Current guidelines state low risk of intracerebral hemorrhage based on studies comprising a total of <400 SM cases. We aimed to compare safety and outcomes following IVT between patients with acute ischaemic stroke and mimicking conditions. Methods We included IVT‐treated ischaemic stroke patients in the SITS International Stroke Thrombolysis Register 2003–2017, examined with magnetic resonance imaging 22–36 h after treatment. Outcomes were parenchymal hematoma (PH) after treatment, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) per Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke Monitoring Study (SITS‐MOST), Second European Co‐operative Stroke Study (ECASS II) and National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Study (NINDS) criteria, death and modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) at 3 months. Results Of 10 436 patients, 429 mimics (4.1%) were identified. The most common types were functional (30.8%), migraine (17.5%) and seizure (14.2%). Patients with mimics had fewer cerebrovascular risk factors and lower median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score [7 (interquartile range, 5–10) vs. 8 (5–14), P < 0.001]. Among mimics versus stroke patients, PH was seen in 1.2% vs. 5.1% (P < 0.001), SICH NINDS in 0.5% vs. 3.9% (P < 0.001), SICH ECASS II in 0.2% vs. 2.1% (P = 0.007) and SICH SITS‐MOST in 0% vs. 0.5% (P = 0.28). Modified Rankin Scale score 0–1 at 3 months was present in 84.1% vs. 57.7% (P < 0.001) and death within 3 months in 2.6% vs. 5.4% (P = 0.028) of mimics and stroke patients, respectively. Conclusions This large observational study indicated that PH and SICH following IVT in patients with SM are uncommon.

Background and Purpose— Posterior circulation stroke (PCS) accounts for 5% to 19% of patients with acute stroke receiving intravenous thrombolysis. We aimed to compare safety and outcomes following intravenous thrombolysis between patients with PCS and anterior circulation stroke (ACS) and incorporate the results in a meta-analysis. Methods— We included patients in the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke Thrombolysis Registry 2013 to 2017 with computed tomography/magnetic resonance angiographic occlusion data. Outcomes were parenchymal hematoma, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) per SITS-MOST (Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke Monitoring Study), ECASS II (Second European Co-operative Stroke Study) and NINDS (Neurological Disorders and Stroke definition), 3-month modified Rankin Scale score, and death. Adjustment for SICH risk factors (age, sex, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, blood pressure, glucose, and atrial fibrillation) and center was done using inverse probability treatment weighting, after which an average treatment effect (ATE) was calculated. Meta-analysis of 13 studies comparing outcomes in PCS versus ACS after intravenous thrombolysis was conducted. Results— Of 5146 patients, 753 had PCS (14.6%). Patients with PCS had lower median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: 7 (interquartile range, 4–13) versus 13 (7–18), P <0.001 and fewer cerebrovascular risk factors. In patients with PCS versus ACS, parenchymal hematoma occurred in 3.2% versus 7.9%, ATE (95% CI): −4.7% (−6.3% to 3.0%); SICH SITS-MOST in 0.6% versus 1.9%, ATE: −1.4% (−2.2% to −0.7%); SICH NINDS in 3.1% versus 7.8%, ATE: −3.0% (−6.3% to 0.3%); SICH ECASS II in 1.8% versus 5.4%, ATE: −2.3% (−5.3% to 0.7%). In PCS versus ACS, 3-month outcomes (70% data availability) were death 18.5% versus 20.5%, ATE: 6.0% (0.7%–11.4%); modified Rankin Scale score 0–1, 45.2% versus 37.5%, ATE: 1.7% (−6.6% to 3.2%); modified Rankin Scale score 0–2, 61.3% versus 49.4%, ATE: 2.4% (3.1%–7.9%). Meta-analysis showed relative risk for SICH in PCS versus ACS being 0.49 (95% CI, 0.32–0.75). Conclusions— The risk of bleeding complications after intravenous thrombolysis in PCS was half that of ACS, with similar functional outcomes and higher risk of death, acknowledging limitations of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale for stroke severity or infarct size adjustment.