Acute thrombi showed different histologic features according to the stroke etiology. The distribution of platelets and proportion of red blood cells and fibrin were major distinguishing factors between stroke subtypes.

Although intravenous administration of tissue plasminogen activator is the only proven treatment after acute ischemic stroke, there is always a concern of hemorrhagic risk after thrombolysis. Therefore, selection of patients with potential benefits in overcoming potential harms of thrombolysis is of great importance. Despite the practical issues in using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for acute stroke treatment, multimodal MRI can provide useful information for accurate diagnosis of stroke, evaluation of the risks and benefits of thrombolysis, and prediction of outcomes. For example, the high sensitivity and specificity of diffusion-weighted image (DWI) can help distinguish acute ischemic stroke from stroke-mimics. Additionally, the lesion mismatch between perfusion-weighted image (PWI) and DWI is thought to represent potential salvageable tissue by reperfusion therapy. However, the optimal threshold to discriminate between benign oligemic areas and the penumbra is still debatable. Signal changes of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery image within DWI lesions may be a surrogate marker for ischemic lesion age and might indicate risks of hemorrhage after thrombolysis. Clot sign on gradient echo image may reflect the nature of clot, and their location, length and morphology may provide predictive information on recanalization by reperfusion therapy. However, previous clinical trials which solely or mainly relied on perfusion-diffusion mismatch for patient selection, failed to show benefits of MRI-based thrombolysis. Therefore, understanding the clinical implication of various useful MRI findings and comprehensively incorporating those variables into therapeutic decision-making may be a more reasonable approach for expanding the indication of acute stroke thrombolysis.

for the Phase 2 Exploratory Clinical Study to Assess the Effects of Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Versus Warfarin on Ischemia, Bleeding, and Hospital Stay in Acute Cerebral Infarction Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (Triple AXEL) Study Group IMPORTANCEIn atrial fibrillation (AF)-related acute ischemic stroke, the optimal oral anticoagulation strategy remains unclear.OBJECTIVE To test whether rivaroxaban or warfarin sodium is safer and more effective for preventing early recurrent stroke in patients with AF-related acute ischemic stroke. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized, multicenter, open-label, blinded end point evaluation, comparative phase 2 trial was conducted from April 28, 2014, to December 7, 2015, at 14 academic medical centers in South Korea among patients with mild AF-related stroke within the previous 5 days who were deemed suitable for early anticoagulation. Analysis was performed on a modified intent-to-treat basis.INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive rivaroxaban, 10 mg/d for 5 days followed by 15 or 20 mg/d, or warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, for 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was the composite of new ischemic lesion or new intracranial hemorrhage seen on results of magnetic resonance imaging at 4 weeks. Primary analysis was performed in patients who received at least 1 dose of study medications and completed follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Key secondary end points were individual components of the primary end point and hospitalization length. RESULTSOf 195 patients randomized, 183 individuals (76 women and 107 men; mean [SD] age, 70.4 [10.4] years) completed magnetic resonance imaging follow-up and were included in the primary end point analysis. The rivaroxaban group (n = 95) and warfarin group (n = 88) showed no differences in the primary end point (47 [49.5%] vs 48 [54.5%]; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.20; P = .49) or its individual components (new ischemic lesion: 28 [29.5%] vs 31 of 87 [35.6%]; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54-1.26; P = .38; new intracranial hemorrhage: 30 [31.6%] vs 25 of 87 [28.7%]; relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.70-1.71; P = .68). Each group had 1 clinical ischemic stroke, and all new intracranial hemorrhages were asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformations. Hospitalization length was reduced with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin (median, 4.0 days [interquartile range, 2.0-6.0 days] vs 6.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-8.0]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn mild AF-related acute ischemic stroke, rivaroxaban and warfarin had comparable safety and efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02042534