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: Hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign (HMCAS) on CT scan before stroke thrombolysis is associated with increased risk for haemorrhage and unfavourable outcome in several small studies. Methods: We examined baseline characteristics, intracranial haemorrhage and outcomes of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with and without HMCAS using the internet-based Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. Symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (SICH) was defined as a National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score decrease of ≥4 points plus type 2 parenchymal haemorrhage on imaging [Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke Monitoring Study (SITS-MOST) definition], or any haemorrhage on follow-up imaging combined with a decrease of at least 1 point on the NIHSS [randomized controlled trial (RCT) definition]. Three-month outcomes were mortality and independence (modified Rankin scale score = 0–2). Results: 1,905 of 10,023 (19.0%) patients had HMCAS. Patients with HMCAS (vs. no HMCAS) were younger (median age 68 vs. 70 years, p < 0.001), had severer stroke (baseline NIHSS score 17 vs. 11, p < 0.05), higher mortality [23% (95% CI 20.0–25.1) vs. 13% (95% CI 12.1–13.7)] and lower independence [31% (95% CI 28.5–33.0) vs. 56% (95% CI 54.8–57.2)]. SICH rates per the SITS-MOST were 1.3% (95% CI 0.8–1.9) versus 1.8% (95% CI 1.5–2.1) and per the RCT definition 10.3% (95% CI 9.0–11.8) versus 6.8% (95% CI 6.2–7.3). In multivariable analysis, HMCAS was not an independent predictor of SICH but of mortality and independence per the SITS-MOST. Conclusions: HMCAS patients had severer stroke and a worse 3-month outcome. The risk for SICH per the SITS-MOST definition was similar compared to non-HMCAS patients, although increased per the RCT definition. There is not sufficient evidence to exclude these patients from intravenous thrombolysis. Combined treatment approaches might be considered in the perspective of the severe outcome and evaluated in RCTs.

Thorén, M. et al. (2017) Predictors for cerebral edema in acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Stroke, 48(9), pp. 2464 -2471 . (doi:10.1161 This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/145896/ AbstractBackground -Cerebral edema (CED) is a severe complication of acute ischemic stroke.