BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is the standard treatment for patients with ischemic stroke occurring within 3 hours from symptom onset, a few interventional neuroradiologists have been treating this category of patients by an intra-arterial (IA) route for >25 years. However, evidence is still required to support the clinical feeling that IA treatment, which needs longer time and greater complexity, leads to a better outcome. Therefore, the objective of the present review was to analyze beliefs and myths underlying the selection of patients for IA thrombolysis. METHODS: We identified and debunked the following myths on IA thrombolysis: (1) IA thrombolysis works better than IV because it achieves higher recanalization rates; (2) IA thrombolysis works better than IV after the 3-hour window; (3) IA thrombolysis works better than IV in vertebrobasilar stroke; (4) carotid duplex, transcranial doppler, CT angiography, or MRA should be used to screen for major vessel occlusion treatable with IA thrombolysis; (5) to be treated with IA thrombolysis, patients should be selected with diffusion/perfusion MRI; (6) IA thrombolysis should be used as a "rescue" therapy for IV thrombolysis; and (7) the efficacy of IA thrombolysis depends on the thrombolytic agent or the device used. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on acute stroke management with IA thrombolysis is scant. Therefore, neither clinicians nor patients have enough information to make truly informed decisions about the most appropriate treatment. Only randomized controlled trials can clear uncertainties about the possible superiority of IA over IV thrombolysis. Regretfully, case series on IA treatment have limited the organization of such trials and have only favored the spread of myths.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is the standard treatment for patients with ischemic stroke occurring within 3 hours from symptom onset, a few interventional neuroradiologists have been treating this category of patients by an intra-arterial (IA) route for >25 years. However, evidence is still required to support the clinical feeling that IA treatment, which needs longer time and greater complexity, leads to a better outcome. Therefore, the objective of the present review was to analyze beliefs and myths underlying the selection of patients for IA thrombolysis. METHODS: We identified and debunked the following myths on IA thrombolysis: (1) IA thrombolysis works better than IV because it achieves higher recanalization rates; (2) IA thrombolysis works better than IV after the 3-hour window; (3) IA thrombolysis works better than IV in vertebrobasilar stroke; (4) carotid duplex, transcranial doppler, CT angiography, or MRA should be used to screen for major vessel occlusion treatable with IA thrombolysis; (5) to be treated with IA thrombolysis, patients should be selected with diffusion/perfusion MRI; (6) IA thrombolysis should be used as a "rescue" therapy for IV thrombolysis; and (7) the efficacy of IA thrombolysis depends on the thrombolytic agent or the device used. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on acute stroke management with IA thrombolysis is scant. Therefore, neither clinicians nor patients have enough information to make truly informed decisions about the most appropriate treatment. Only randomized controlled trials can clear uncertainties about the possible superiority of IA over IV thrombolysis. Regretfully, case series on IA treatment have limited the organization of such trials and have only favored the spread of myths.
Authors: Philip M Meyers; H Christian Schumacher; E Sander Connolly; Eric J Heyer; William A Gray; Randall T Higashida Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Osama O Zaidat; David S Liebeskind; Randall C Edgell; Catherine M Amlie-Lefond; Junaid S Kalia; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 9.910