Dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban have been approved for primary and secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, questions have arisen about how to manage emergency situations, such as when thrombolysis would be required for acute ischemic stroke or for the managing intracranial or gastrointestinal bleedings. We summarize the current literature and provide recommendations for the management of these situations. Peak plasma levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban are observed about 2-4 h after intake. Elimination of dabigatran is mainly dependent on renal function. Consequently, if renal function is impaired, there is a risk of drug accumulation that is highest for dabigatran followed by rivaroxaban and then apixaban and thus dosing recommendations are different. To date, no bedside tests are available that reliably assess the anticoagulatory effect of DOACs, nor are specific antidotes available. We recommend performing the following tests if DOAC intake is unknown: dabigatran-associated bleeding risk is minimized or can be neglected if thrombin time, Hemoclot test, or Ecarin clotting time is normal. Apixaban and rivaroxaban effects can be ruled out if findings from the anti-factor Xa activity test are normal. High plasma levels of DOAC are also mostly excluded if PTT and PTZ are normal four or more hours after DOAC intake. However, normal values of global coagulation tests are not sufficient if thrombolysis is indicated for treating acute stroke. The decision for or against thrombolysis is an individual decision; in these cases, thrombolysis use is off-label. In case of bleeding, prothrombin complex concentrates seems to be the most plausible treatment. For severe gastrointestinal bleeding with life-threatening blood loss, the bleeding source needs to be identified and treated by invasive measures. Use of procoagulant drugs (antifibrinolytics) might also be considered. However, there is very limited clinical experience with these products in conjunction with DOAC.

Background: It is still unclear, which physiotherapeutic approaches are most effective in stroke recovery. Vojta therapy is a type of physiotherapy that was originally developed for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Vojta therapy has been reported to improve automatic control of body posture. Because acute stroke patients are characterised by a disturbance in the ability to adapt to changes in body position, requiring automatic postural adjustment, we decided to investigate Vojta therapy in the early rehabilitation of stroke patients. Aim of the trial was to test the hypothesis that Vojta therapy-as a new physiotherapeutic approach in early stroke recoveryimproves postural control and motor function in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) or intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Methods: This prospective, randomised controlled trial included patients with imaging-confirmed AIS or ICH, severe hemiparesis and randomly assigned them to Vojta therapy or standard physiotherapy within 72 h after stroke onset. Main exclusion criterion was restricted ability to communicate. Primary endpoint was the improvement of postural control measured by the Trunk Control Test (TCT) on day 9 after admission. Secondary endpoint among others was improvement of arm function (measured with Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients [MESUPES]). Results: Forty patients (20 per group) were randomised into the trial. Median age was 75 (66-80) years, 50% were women. The median improvement in TCT within 9 days was 25.5 points (=25.5%) (interquartile range [IQR] 12.5-42.5) in the Vojta group and 0 (IQR 0-13) in the control group (p = 0.001). Patients treated with Vojta therapy achieved a greater improvement in the MESUPES than patients in the control group (20% vs 10%, p = 0.006). Conclusion: This first randomised controlled trial of Vojta therapy in acute stroke patients demonstrates improvement of postural control through Vojta therapy compared to standard physiotherapy. Although this trial has some methodical weaknesses, Vojta therapy might be a promising approach in early stroke rehabilitation and should be studied in larger trials. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03035968. Registered 30 January 2017-Retrospectively registered; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Pregnancy, postpartum and menopause are regarded as periods women are more vulnerable to ischaemic events. There are conflicting results regarding stroke risk and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) during menopause. Stroke in pregnancy is generally increasing with serious consequences for mother and child; therefore, recommendations for acute treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or mechanical thrombectomy (MT) are needed. The aim of this guideline is to support and guide clinicians in treatment decisions in stroke in women. Following the “Grading of Recommendations and Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)” approach, the guidelines were developed according to the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Standard Operating Procedure. Systematic reviews and metanalyses were performed. Based on available evidence, recommendations were provided. Where there was a lack of evidence, an expert consensus statement was given. Low quality of evidence was found to suggest against the use of HRT to reduce the risk of stroke (ischaemic and haemorrhagic) in postmenopausal women. No data was available on the outcome of women with stroke when treated with HRT. No sufficient evidence was found to provide recommendations for treatment with IVT or MT during pregnancy, postpartum and menstruation. The majority of members suggested that pregnant women can be treated with IVT after assessing the benefit/risk profile on an individual basis, all members suggested treatment with IVT during postpartum and menstruation. All members suggested treatment with MT during pregnancy. The guidelines highlight the need to identify evidence for stroke prevention and acute treatment in women in more vulnerable periods of their lifetime to generate reliable data for future guidelines.

Background: Different aspects of acute stroke management and strategies for stroke prevention derive from two viewpoints: specific traditional and historical backgrounds and evidence-based medicine from modern randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis and authorized clinical practice guidelines (GLs). Regarding intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), Cerebrovascular Diseases published the 2006 European stroke initiative recommendations for the management of ICH. In 2009, the revised Japanese GLs for the management of stroke, including that of ICH, appeared in Japanese. Whereas GLs for the prevention and treatment of ischemic stroke were presented in detail, recommendations with regard to ICH are relatively rare both in Japan and Europe. Methods: Since 2011, the authors have met repeatedly and have compared the latest versions of published European and Japanese GLs for ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. Many aspects have only been addressed in one but left out in the other GLs, which consequently founded the basis for the comparison. Classification of evidence levels and recommendation grades defined by the individual committees differed between both original GLs. Results: Aspects of major importance were similar and hence did not need extensive interpretation, mostly due to a lack of evidence from appropriate RCTs worldwide. The target level to which systolic blood pressure should be lowered is quite high; <170 mm Hg for patients with known hypertension in Europe and <180 mm Hg in Japan. The results of ongoing clinical trials are awaited for the optimal target level and optimal medications. Concerning ICH associated with oral anticoagulant therapy, both guidelines give similar recommendations, namely that anticoagulation should be discontinued and the international normalized ratio of prothrombin time should be normalized with prothrombin complex concentrate or fresh-frozen plasma and additional vitamin K. Patients with ICH were treated surgically, often based on individual decisions - more frequently in Japan, depending on the association with hypertension. Patients with large or intraventricular bleedings were only treated if a life-saving performance was considered, irrespective of the neurological outcome. Infra- and supratentorial differences were similarly addressed in both GLs. Conclusion: This brief survey - when compared with the lengthy original recommendations - provides a stimulating basis for an extended interest among Japanese and European stroke clinicians to learn from their individual experiences and to strengthen efforts for joint cooperation in treating and preventing stroke all around the globe.