Powers 2015

AHA/ASA Guideline
2015 American Heart Association/American Stroke

Association Focused Update of the 2013 Guidelines for
the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic
Stroke Regarding Endovascular Treatment
A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart
Association/American Stroke Association
The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational
tool for neurologists.
Endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS); Congress of Neurological
Surgeons (CNS); AANS/CNS Cerebrovascular Section; American Society of Neuroradiology; and
Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology
Downloaded from http://stroke.ahajournals.org/ by guest on July 12, 2017
William J. Powers, MD, FAHA, Chair; Colin P. Derdeyn, MD, FAHA, Vice Chair;
José Biller, MD, FAHA; Christopher S. Coffey, PhD; Brian L. Hoh, MD, FAHA;
Edward C. Jauch, MD, MS, FAHA; Karen C. Johnston, MD, MSc;
S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, FAHA; Alexander A. Khalessi, MD, MS, FAHA;
Chelsea S. Kidwell, MD, FAHA; James F. Meschia, MD, FAHA;
Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, FAHA; Dileep R. Yavagal, MD, MBBS;
on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke Council
Purpose—The aim of this guideline is to provide a focused update of the current recommendations for the endovascular
treatment of acute ischemic stroke. When there is overlap, the recommendations made here supersede those of previous
guidelines.
Methods—This focused update analyzes results from 8 randomized, clinical trials of endovascular treatment and other
relevant data published since 2013. It is not intended to be a complete literature review from the date of the previous
guideline publication but rather to include pivotal new evidence that justifies changes in current recommendations.
Members of the writing committee were appointed by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association/American Stroke
Association Manuscript Oversight Committee. Strict adherence to the American Heart Association conflict of interest
policy was maintained throughout the consensus process. Recommendations follow the American Heart Association/
American Stroke Association methods of classifying the level of certainty of the treatment effect and the class of evidence.
Prerelease review of the draft guideline was performed by 6 expert peer reviewers and by the members of the Stroke
Council Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and Stroke Council Leadership Committee.
The American Heart Association makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship
or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete
and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest.
This statement was approved by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee on June 5, 2015, and the American
Heart Association Executive Committee on June 12, 2015. A copy of the document is available at http://my.americanheart.org/statements by selecting either
the “By Topic” link or the “By Publication Date” link. To purchase additional reprints, call 843-216-2533 or e-mail [email protected].
The American Heart Association requests that this document be cited as follows: Powers WJ, Derdeyn CP, Biller J, Coffey CS, Hoh BL, Jauch EC,
Johnston KC, Johnston SC, Khalessi AA, Kidwell CS, Meschia JF, Ovbiagele B, Yavagal DR; on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke
Council. 2015 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association focused update of the 2013 guidelines for the early management of patients with
acute ischemic stroke regarding endovascular treatment: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke
Association. Stroke. 2015;46:3020–3035.
Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted by the AHA Office of Science Operations. For more on AHA statements and guidelines
development, visit http://my.americanheart.org/statements and select the “Policies and Development” link.
Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express
permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/General/Copyright-
Permission-Guidelines_UCM_300404_Article.jsp. A link to the “Copyright Permissions Request Form” appears on the right side of the page.
© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
Stroke is available at http://stroke.ahajournals.org DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000074
3020
Powers et al Focused Update on Acute Ischemic Stroke and Endovascular Treatment 3021
Results—Evidence-based guidelines are presented for the selection of patients with acute ischemic stroke for endovascular
treatment, for the endovascular procedure, and for systems of care to facilitate endovascular treatment.
Conclusions—Certain endovascular procedures have been demonstrated to provide clinical benefit in selected patients
with acute ischemic stroke. Systems of care should be organized to facilitate the delivery of this care. (Stroke. 2015;46:
3024-3039. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000074.)
Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements ◼ endovascular procedures ◼ infusions, intra-arterial ◼ neuroimaging
◼ stents ◼ stroke ◼ therapeutics
S ince the publication of the most recent “Guidelines for

the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic
Stroke” in 2013,1 substantial new high-quality evidence on the
New Randomized, Clinical Trials of
Endovascular Stroke Treatment
clinical efficacy of endovascular treatments of acute ischemic Studies With Primarily Intra-Arterial Fibrinolysis
stroke has become available. This focused update on endovas-
or First-Generation Mechanical Embolectomy
cular treatment of acute ischemic stroke analyzes results from 8
Devices
randomized, clinical trials of endovascular treatment and other Three randomized controlled trials of endovascular treatment
relevant data published since 2013 while taking into account of acute ischemic stroke with primarily intra-arterial fibrino-
the previous evidence summarized in the 2013 guidelines. This lysis and/or first-generation mechanical embolectomy devices
focused update is not intended to be based on a complete litera- were carried out from 2004 to 2012 (Tables 2–4). Intra-arterial
ture review from the date of the previous guideline publication Versus Systemic Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke
but rather to include pivotal new evidence that justifies changes (SYNTHESIS Expansion) was a prospective, randomized,
in current recommendations. When there is overlap, the recom- open-label, blinded-end-point (PROBE), 2-arm superiority
mendations made here supersede those of previous guidelines. trial that enrolled 362 patients with ischemic stroke who were
Members of the writing committee were appointed by eligible for intravenous r-tPA within 4.5 hours of onset and for
whom endovascular treatment was possible within 6 hours. No
the American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke
imaging other than nonenhanced computed tomography (CT)
Association Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight
was required. The patients were randomized 1:1 to standard-
Committee and the AHA/American Stroke Association
dose intravenous r-tPA 0.9 mg/kg or endovascular therapy
Manuscript Oversight Committee, representing various areas
(intra-arterial r-tPA, mechanical clot disruption or retrieval,
of medical expertise. Strict adherence to the AHA conflict
or a combination of these approaches). Only 8% had poste-
of interest policy was maintained throughout the consensus
rior circulation strokes. Median onset to treatment time inter-
process. Panel members were assigned topics relevant to their
val was 165 minutes in the intravenous r-tPA group and 225
areas of expertise, reviewed the stroke literature with empha-
minutes in the endovascular group. Among the patients who
sis on publications since the prior guidelines, and drafted
received endovascular treatment, 66% underwent infusion of
recommendations in accordance with the American College
intra-arterial r-tPA and thrombus fragmentation with a guide-
of Cardiology/AHA’s Level of Evidence grading algorithm
wire only; in 34%, a device was also deployed. Stent retrievers
(Table 1). All recommendations were unanimously approved
were used in 14%. Data on rates and efficacy of recanalization
by the members of the writing group.
were not published. There was no difference in the primary
end point of the percentage with good outcome defined as a
Treatment With Intravenous Recombinant modified Rankin Scale (mRS)7,8 score of 0 or 1, death at 3
Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator months, or symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) at
Rapid administration of intravenous recombinant tissue-type 7 days. There were no significant differences in outcomes in
plasminogen activator (r-tPA) to appropriate patients remains subgroups, including time to treatment (0–3 or 3–4.5 hours),
the mainstay of early treatment of acute ischemic stroke.1 baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)9
Timely restoration of blood flow in ischemic stroke patients score (<11 or ≥11), and age (≤67 years or >67 years).10
is effective in reducing long-term morbidity. For patients The Interventional Management of Stroke Trial III (IMS
who meet national and international eligibility guidelines, III) was a PROBE, 2-arm superiority trial that enrolled
intravenous r-tPA improves functional outcomes at 3 to 6 patients with a major ischemic stroke defined by NIHSS score
months when given within 4.5 hours of ischemic stroke onset ≥10 who received intravenous r-tPA within 3 hours and were
and should be administered. Every effort should be made to likely to or known to have occlusion of a major cerebral artery.
shorten any delays in the initiation of treatment because earlier Those who showed clear hypodensity in greater than one
treatments are associated with increased benefits. If patients third of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory on non-
who are eligible for intravenous r-tPA do not have intracranial enhanced CT were excluded. No other imaging was required.
vascular imaging as part of their initial evaluation, they should An amendment midway through the trial allowed screening
begin receiving intravenous r-tPA before being transported for with CT angiography (CTA) for patients with NIHSS score
additional imaging and before being transferred for endovas- >8. More than 95% received a clinical diagnosis of anterior
cular treatment. This approach will help minimize onset-to- circulation stroke. Patients were randomly allocated 1:2 to
treatment times, a key driver of efficacy for r-tPA.1–6 standard-dose intravenous r-tPA (0.9 mg/kg) or to intravenous
3022 Stroke October 2015
Table 1. Applying Class of Recommendations and Level of Evidence to Clinical Strategies, Interventions, Treatments, or Diagnostic
Testing in Patient Care*
CLASS (STRENGTH) OF RECOMMENDATION LEVEL (QUALITY) OF EVIDENCE‡

CLASS I (STRONG) LEVEL A
Suggested phrases for writing recommendations: High-quality evidence‡ from more than 1 RCTs
Is recommended Meta-analyses of high-quality RCTs
One or more RCTs corroborated by high-quality registry studies
Should be performed/administered/other
Comparative-Effectiveness Phrases†: LEVEL B-R (Randomized)
º Treatment/strategy A is recommended/indicated in
preference to treatment B Moderate-quality evidence‡ from 1 or more RCTs
º Treatment A should be chosen over treatment B Meta-analyses of moderate-quality RCTs
CLASS IIa (MODERATE) LEVEL B-NR (Nonrandomized)

Suggested phrases for writing recommendations:
Moderate-quality evidence‡ from 1 or more well-designed,
Is reasonable
well-executed nonrandomized studies, observational
studies, or registry studies
Comparative-Effectiveness Phrases†:
Meta-analyses of such studies
º Treatment/strategy A is probably recommended/indicated in
preference to treatment B LEVEL C
º It is reasonable to choose treatment A
over treatment B Randomized or nonrandomized observational or registry
studies with limitations of design or execution
CLASS IIb (WEAK) Meta-analyses of such studies
Suggested phrases for writing recommendations: Physiological or mechanistic studies in human subjects
May/might be reasonable
May/might be considered LEVEL E
Usefulness/effectiveness is unknown/unclear/uncertain Consensus of expert opinion based on clinical experience
or not well established
(Generally, LOE A or B use only) COR and LOE are determined independently (any COR may be paired with any LOE).
A recommendation with LOE C or E does not imply that the recommendation is weak.
Suggested phrases for writing recommendations: Many important clinical questions addressed in guidelines do not lend themselves to
Is not recommended clinical trials. Although RCTs are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus
that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective.
Should not be performed/administered/other *

outcome or increased diagnostic accuracy or incremental prognostic information).
† For comparative-effectiveness recommendations (COR I and IIa; LOE A and B only),
CLASS III: Harm (STRONG) studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons
Suggested phrases for writing recommendations: of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.
Potentially harmful ‡ The method of assessing quality is evolving, including the application of standardized,
widely used, and preferably validated evidence grading tools; and for systematic reviews,
Causes harm the incorporation of an Evidence Review Committee.
Associated with excess morbidity/mortality COR indicates Class of Recommendation; LOE, Level of Evidence;
Should not be performed/administered/other NR, nonrandomized; R, randomized; and RCT, randomized controlled trial.
r-tPA 0.6 mg/kg followed by endovascular therapy with a retrievers used. Recanalization occurred 325±52 minutes after
device and/or intra-arterial r-tPA if occlusion persisted and if stroke onset, achieving Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction
the endovascular intervention could be started within 5 hours (TICI) grade11 2b/3 in 41%. The trial was stopped early for
and completed within 7 hours of onset. In the endovascular futility after 656 of the projected 900 subjects were enrolled.
group, groin puncture occurred at a mean±SD of 208±47 min- There was no significant difference in outcome between the
utes after stroke onset. Endovascular therapy was adminis- intravenous r-tPA–only group and the endovascular group for
tered in 77% randomized to this treatment group. Intra-arterial the primary end point of the percentage of patients with a good
r-tPA alone was used in 41%, and a device with or without outcome as measured by an mRS score of 0 to 2 or for death at
intra-arterial r-tPA was used in 59%; in only 1.5% were stent 90 days. In the endovascular group, there was no difference in
Table 2. Selected Eligibility Criteria for Recent Randomized, Clinical Trials of Endovascular Treatments for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Treatment Groups Eligibility
IV r-tPA NIHSS Prestroke Anticoagulation/ Vascular
Study Active vs Control Eligible Age, y Time Territory Score Function Coagulopathy ASPECTS Imaging Other Imaging
SYNTHESIS IA drug/any device/ Required 18–80 6 h to IAT Any ≤25 mRS score Exclusion No No No
Expansion both vs IV r-tPA 0–1 criteria
IMS III 2/3 standard-dose Required, 18–82 5 h to IAT Any ≥10 or mRS score Exclusion <4 No >1/3 MCA
IV r-tPA+IA drug/any ≤3 h 8–9 with 0–2 criteria excluded
device/both vs IV r-tPA occlusion
MR RESCUE Standard (±IV Not 18–85 8 h to IAT Stop Anterior 6–29 mRS score Exclusion No CTA, MRA Multimodal
r-tPA)+MERCI or required by 9 h circulation 0–2 criteria CT/MR for
Penumbra vs standard stratification
(±IV r-tPA)
MR CLEAN Standard (±IV r-tPA)+IA Not >18 6 h to IAT Anterior >2 None Exclusion No CTA, MRA,
UK, r-tPA, device vs required circulation criteria DSA
standard (±IV r-tPA)
ESCAPE Standard (±IV Not >18 12 h to ICA/MCA >5 Barthel score No exclusion ≥6 CTA Multiphase
r-tPA)+stent retriever required randomization ≥90 criteria CTA or CT
“recommended” vs perfusion for
standard (±IV r-tPA) detection of

core size and
collaterals
SWIFT Standard (±IV Required 18–80 6 h to groin ICA/M1 8–29 mRS score Exclusion ≥6 CTA, MRA CT or MRI
PRIME r-tPA)+stent retriever 0–1 criteria mismatch for
vs standard (±IV r-tPA) first 71
ASPECTS ≥6
for remaining
125
EXTEND-IA Standard (±IV Required ≥18 6 h to groin Anterior None mRS score Exclusion No CTA, MRA CT/MRI
r-tPA)+stent retriever Complete circulation 0–1 criteria mismatch
vs standard (±IV r-tPA) in 8 h
REVASCAT Standard (±IV Not 18–80 (85) 8 h to groin ICA/M1 ≥6 mRS score Exclusion ≥7 CTA, MRA, CT perfusion,
r-tPA)+stent retriever required 0–1 criteria (noncontrast DSA CTA source,
vs standard (±IV r-tPA) CT) or MRI-DWI
≥6 (MRI-DWI) required if
≥8 (age >4.5 h
>81–85 y)
ASPECTS indicates Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score; CT, computed tomography; CTA, computed tomography angiography; DSA, digital subtraction angiography; DWI,
diffusion-weighted imaging; ESCAPE, Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Anterior Circulation Proximal Occlusion With Emphasis on Minimizing CT to Recanalization Times;
EXTEND-IA, Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial; IA, intra-arterial; IAT, intra-arterial therapy; ICA, internal carotid artery; IMS III,
Interventional Management of Stroke Trial III; IV, intravenous; MCA, middle cerebral artery; MERCI, Mechanical Embolus Removal in Cerebral Ischemia; MR, magnetic resonance;
MR CLEAN, Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke; MR RESCUE, MR and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy;
MRA, magnetic resonance angiography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; mRS, modified Rankin scale; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; r-tPA, recombinant
tissue-type plasminogen activator; REVASCAT, Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within 8 Hours;
SWIFT PRIME, Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke; and UK, urokinase.
outcome between those treated <90 minutes and those treated Penumbra device with optional intra-arterial r-tPA). Onset to
>90 minutes from intravenous r-tPA to groin puncture. The groin puncture in the endovascular group was 381±74 min-
proportion of patients with an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days utes (mean±SD). TICI grade 2b/3 recanalization was achieved
increased with increasing recanalization.12 in 25% of the endovascular group. Among all patients, mean
MR and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using mRS scores at 90 days did not differ between endovascular
Embolectomy (MR RESCUE) was a PROBE, 2-arm superior- and standard medical care, nor was endovascular therapy
ity trial that enrolled 118 patients with large-artery occlusion superior to standard medical care in patients with a favorable
and anterior circulation ischemic stroke within 8 hours who penumbral pattern (mean score, 3.9 versus 3.4; P=0.23) or in
were ineligible for intravenous r-tPA or had persistent vessel patients with an unfavorable penumbral pattern14 (mean score,
occlusion after intravenous r-tPA. Patients were divided into 2 4.0 versus 4.4; P=0.32).
subgroups by pretreatment CT or magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) into those with a favorable or those with an unfavor- Studies With Primarily Stent Retrievers
able penumbral pattern with the use of imaging criteria based Five randomized controlled trials of endovascular treatment
on a previous study.13 Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 of acute ischemic stroke with primarily stent retrievers were
to standard medical care or endovascular therapy (MERCI carried out from 2010 to 2015 (Tables 2–4). The Multicenter
[Mechanical Embolus Removal in Cerebral Ischemia] or Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for
Table 3. Selected Patient Characteristics for Recent Randomized, Clinical Trials of Endovascular Treatments for Acute
Ischemic Stroke
Participants (Active/Control)
Time to
Time Onset to TICI Grade Reperfusion
Age, NIHSS Score, Device Onset to IV r-tPA, Groin Puncture, 2b/3 Mean±SD,
Mean±SD Median (IQR) ASPECTS, Deployment in Mean±SD, Median Mean±SD, Recanalization, Median
Study n (IQR), y [Range] Territory, % Median (IQR) Active Group (IQR), min Median (IQR), min % (IQR), min
SYNTHESIS 181/181 66±11/67±11 13 (9–17)/13 88/94 anterior 91% 165 (140–200) 225 (194–260)
Expansion (9–18) IA r-tPA alone to clot
66%
Device added
34%
14% stent
retriever
IMS III 434/222 69/68 17 [7–40]/16 97/97 anterior 56.9%/59.0% 77% 122±34/121±34 208±47 41 325±52
[8–30] (clinical) (8–10) 41% IA r-tPA
38% IA
r-tPA+device
21% device only
1.5% stent
retriever
MR RESCUE 64/54 66±15 17 (13–21) ICA 20/13 95% 381±74 27
M1 61/72 58% MERCI
M2 19/15 22% Penumbra
16% both
MR CLEAN 233/267 66 (55–76)/ 17 (14–21) IC ICA 0.4/1.1 9 (7–10)/ 83.7% 85 (67–110)/ 260 (210–313) 59 332
66 (56–76) [3–30]/18 ICA+M1 25.3/28.2 9 (8–10) 81.5% stent 87 (65–116) (279–394)
(14–22) M1 66.1/62.0 retriever
[4–38] M2 7.7/7.9 IAT 21%
A1/A2 0.4/0.8
ESCAPE 165/150 71 (60–81)/ 16 (13–20)/17 ICA+M1 27.6/26.5 9 (8–10)/ 91.5% 110 (80–142)/ 72.40
70 (60–81) (12–20) M1/all M2 68.1/71.4 9 (8–10) 72.7% stent 125 (89–183)
M2 3.7/2.0 retriever
SWIFT 98/98 65±13/ 17 (13–20)/ ICA 18.3/16.0 9 (7–10)/ 88.8% 110.5 (85–156)/ 224 (165–275) 88
PRIME 66±11 17 (13–19) M1 67/77 9 (8–10) All stent retriever 117 (80–155)
M2 14/6
EXTEND-IA 35/35 69±12// 17 (13–20)/ ICA 31/31 77% 127 (93–162)/ 210 (166–251) 86 248
70±12 13 (9–19) M1 57/51 All stent retriever 145 (105–180) (204–277)
M2 11/17
REVASCAT 103/103 66±11/ 17 (14–20)/ ICA 0/1 7 (6–9)/ 95% 118 (90–150)/ 269 (201–340) 66 355
67±10 17 (12–19) ICA+M1 26/27 8 (6–9) All stent retriever 105 (86–138) (269–430)
M1 65/64
M2 10/8
ASPECTS indicates Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score; ESCAPE, Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Anterior Circulation Proximal Occlusion With Emphasis on
Minimizing CT to Recanalization Times; EXTEND-IA, Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial; IA, intra-arterial; IAT, intra-arterial
therapy; ICA, internal carotid artery; IMS III, Interventional Management of Stroke Trial III; IQR, interquartile range; IV, intravenous; MR CLEAN, Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of
Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke; MR RESCUE, MR and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; r-tPA,
recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator; REVASCAT, Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within
8 Hours; SWIFT PRIME, Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke; and TICI, Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction.
Acute Ischemic Stroke (MR CLEAN) was a PROBE, 2-arm to be possible. There were different specific exclusion criteria
superiority trial that studied 500 patients with acute ischemic for patients with coagulation abnormalities, previous ischemic
stroke caused by an proximal intracranial occlusion in the ante- stroke, ICH, or severe head trauma, depending on whether
rior circulation (distal intracranial carotid artery, MCA [M1 or intra-arterial fibrinolysis was contemplated. Patients who were
M2], or anterior cerebral artery [A1 or A2]) established with eligible in agreement with national guidelines received intrave-
CTA, magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), or digital sub- nous r-tPA. Those with a nonfavorable response were eligible
traction angiography and a score of ≥2 on the NIHSS. The for inclusion. There was no specified time for observation to
steering committee recommended that neuroimaging studies determine the response to intravenous r-tPA, nor was there an
to assess vessel patency should preferably be done before or exact definition of what constituted a nonfavorable response,
simultaneously with treatment with intravenous r-tPA. Initiation although recovery to a level that would not result in admin-
of endovascular treatment within 6 hours of stroke onset had istration of intravenous r-tPA was suggested. Patients were
randomly allocated 1:1 to either usual care alone or intra-arte- interim analysis conducted earlier than planned showed that a
rial treatment plus usual care. Intra-arterial treatment consisted stopping criterion based on the prespecified O’Brien-Fleming
of arterial catheterization with a microcatheter to the level of stopping boundary had been crossed, and the trial was stopped.
occlusion and delivery of a fibrinolytic agent, mechanical For the primary end point, the adjusted OR (indicating the
thrombectomy, or both. The method of intra-arterial treatment odds of improvement of 1 point on the mRS) was 3.1 (95%
was left to the discretion of the local interventionist. Sixty-four CI, 2.0–4.7) favoring endovascular intervention. The propor-
percent of participants had M1 occlusion alone, and an addition of patients with an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days was
tional 27% had occlusion of M1 and the internal carotid artery 53.0% in the intervention group and 29.3% in the control group
(ICA). Of the 195 patients in the endovascular group of 233 (P<0.001). Mortality at 90 days was 10.4% in the intervention
who received endovascular treatment, onset to groin puncture group and 19.0% in the control group (adjusted rate ratio, 0.5;
was 260 minutes (interquartile range, 210–313 minutes), a stent 95% CI, 0.3–0.8). The rate of sICH clinically determined at the
retriever was used in 81.5%, and TICI grade 2b/3 recanalization study sites was 3.6% in the endovascular intervention group
was achieved in 59%. The treatment effect was estimated as and 2.7% in the control group (adjusted rate ratio, 1.2; 95%
an odds ratio (OR), adjusted for prespecified prognostic factors CI, 0.3–4.6). Of the 165 participants randomized to endovascu-
that intra-arterial treatment would lead to lower mRS score at lar intervention, retrievable stents were used in 130 of the 151
90 days, compared with usual care alone (shift analysis). The (86.1%) who underwent an endovascular procedure. TICI grade
adjusted OR was 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21– 2b/3 recanalization was observed in 72.4% in the endovascu-
2.30) in favor of intervention. There was an absolute difference lar group. In subgroup analysis, similar benefit was observed
of 13.5% (95% CI, 5.9–21.2) in the rate of functional indepen- in the 235 patients who received intravenous r-tPA (OR, 2.5;
dence (mRS score, 0–2) in favor of the intervention (32.6% ver- 95% CI, 1.6–4.0) and the 76 who did not (OR, 2.6; 95% CI,
sus 19.1%). There were no significant differences in mortality 1.1– 5.9). Only 49 participants (15.5%) underwent randomiza-
or the occurrence of sICH. Most patients (445 of 500) received tion ≥6 hours after symptom onset, too few to assess efficacy in
intravenous r-tPA and showed benefit in subgroup analysis. the 6- to 12-hour time window.18
There were too few patients who did not receive intravenous Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy as
r-tPA to draw any conclusions.15 In a subsequent presentation Primary Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke
at the 2015 International Stroke Conference, the MR CLEAN (SWIFT PRIME) was a PROBE-design trial that randomized
investigators reported a stroke onset–to–reperfusion time of 196 patients with acute ischemic stroke and NIHSS scores of 8
332 minutes (interquartile range, 279–394 minutes) and dem- to 29 who received intravenous r-tPA within 4.5 hours of onset
onstrated a marked decline in clinical benefit with time so that and had CTA or MRA confirmation of intracranial ICA, M1,
the benefit was no longer statistically significant if reperfusion or carotid terminus occlusion. If CTA or MRA was part of the
occurred after 6 hours 19 minutes.16 local standard of care, it was performed at initial evaluation
The Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Anterior before intravenous r-tPA was started; if not, it was performed
Circulation Proximal Occlusion With Emphasis on Minimizing after review of the initial imaging and signing of informed con-
CT to Recanalization Times (ESCAPE) was a PROBE, 2-arm sent. Groin puncture had to be possible within 6 hours of stroke
superiority trial of 316 patients with disabling acute ischemic onset. There were exclusion criteria for coagulopathies. Initially,
stroke (NIHSS score >5) who could be randomized up 12 CT perfusion or multimodal MRI was required, and enrollment
hours after the onset. Groin puncture had to be possible within was restricted to patients with the target mismatch profile (as
60 minutes of CT/CTA. Nonenhanced CT and CTA (prefer- assessed by specialized software19) and defined as follows: The
ably multiphase) were performed rapidly with a target door- ischemic core lesion measured ≤50 mL; the volume of tissue
to-imaging time of 25 minutes to identify participants with a with a time to maximum delay of >10 seconds was ≤100 mL;
small infarct core (by Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score the mismatch volume was at least 15 mL; and the mismatch ratio
[ASPECTS]17 6–10 or CT perfusion), an occluded proximal was >1.8. Midway through the trial, the inclusion criteria were
intracranial artery in the anterior circulation (internal carotid, modified to accommodate sites with limited perfusion imaging
M1 MCA, or ≥2 M2s), and moderate to good collateral cir- capability. Sites with perfusion imaging were encouraged to
culation defined as “the filling of 50% or more of the middle- continue to use the target mismatch criteria. Sites without per-
cerebral artery pial arterial circulation on CTA (preferably on fusion imaging used ASPECTS (ASPECTS >6 was required).
multiphase CTA).” There were no exclusions for coagulopathy, A total of 71 patients were enrolled under the initial imaging
prior stroke, or head trauma. Fifty-eight patients received intra- entry criteria and 125 patients under the revised imaging entry
venous r-tPA at a community hospital and then were transferred criteria. Perfusion imaging was performed and used for selec-
to an ESCAPE endovascular center. Participants were randomly tion in 82.6%. Seventy-three percent of participants had M1
assigned 1:1 to receive guideline-based care alone or guideline- occlusion, and 17% had ICA occlusion. Intravenous r-tPA was
based care plus endovascular treatment with the use of available administered at an outside hospital in 35%. Participants were
thrombectomy devices. The use of retrievable stents and suction randomized 1:1 to treatment with intravenous r-tPA alone or
through a balloon guide catheter during thrombus retrieval was to treatment with intravenous r-tPA followed by neurovascular
also recommended. Participants in both groups received intra- thrombectomy with the use of a stent retriever. After the results
venous r-tPA within 4.5 hours after onset if they met accepted of the MR CLEAN trial and the passing of stopping boundar-
local guidelines. The primary outcome was the OR that the ies in the ESCAPE trial were announced, a decision was made
intervention would lead to lower scores on the mRS at 90 days to conduct the first interim efficacy analysis a little earlier than
(shift analysis). After the release of the MR CLEAN results, an originally planned. The results of this interim efficacy analysis
Table 4. Selected Clinical Outcomes for Recent Randomized, Clinical Trials of Endovascular Treatments for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Outcomes
Primary End Point Death (90 d/3 mo) Symptomatic ICH mRS 0 to 2 at 90 d
Active, Control, Active, Control, Active, Control, Active, Control,

Study % % Comparison % % Comparison Time % % Comparison % % Comparison
SYNTHESIS mRS 0 to 30.4 34.8 0.71 14.4 9.9 P=0.22 7d 6 6 P=0.53 42.0 46.4
Expansion 1 at 3 mo (0.44 to 1.14)*
IMS III mRS 0 to 40.8 38.7 1.5 19.1 21.6 P=0.52 30 h 6.2 5.9 P=0.83 40.8 38.7 1.5
2 at 90 d (−6 to 9)† (−6 to 9)†
MR RESCUE Mean mRS 3.9 3.9 P=0.99 19 24 P=0.75 7d 5 4 P=0.24 19 20

MR CLEAN Improvement in mRS 1.67 21 22 90 d 7.7 6.4 32.6 19.1 2.16
at 90 d (shift analysis) (1.21 to 2.3)* (1.39 to 3.38)*
ESCAPE improvement 3.1 10.4 19 0.5 90 d 3.6 2.7 1.2 53 29.3 1.7
mRS at 90 d (2.0 to 4.7)* (0.3 to 0.8)§ (0.3 to 4.6)§ (1.3 to 2.2)§
(shift analysis)
SWIFT PRIME Improvement in P<0.001 9 12 0.74 27 h 0 3 60 35 1.7

mRS at 90 d (0.33 to 1.68)# (1.23 to 2.33)#
5 and 6 combined
(shift analysis)
EXTEND-IA Median reperfusion 100 37 4.7 9 20 0.45 36 h 0 6 −6 (−13 to 2) 71 40 4.2

at 24 h (2.5 to 9.0)* (0.1 to 2.1)* (1.4 to 12)*
Decrease in NIHSS 8 80 37 6.0
or NIHSS 0, 1 at 3 d (2.0 to 18.0)*
REVASCAT Improvement in 1.7 18 16 1.2 90 d 2 2 1.0 43.7 28.2 2.1
mRS at 90 d (1.05 to 2.8)* (0.6 to 2.2)†† (0.1 to7.0)†† (1.1 to 4.0)║
5 and 6 combined
(shift analysis)
(Continued )
ASPECTS indicates Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score; EC, extracranial; ESCAPE, Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Anterior Circulation Proximal
Occlusion With Emphasis on Minimizing CT to Recanalization Times; EXTEND-IA, Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial;
ICA, internal carotid artery; ICH, intracerebral hemorrhage; IMS III, Interventional Management of Stroke Trial III; IV, intravenous; MR CLEAN, Multicenter Randomized
Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke; MR RESCUE, MR and Recanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy; mRS, modified Rankin scale;
NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; r-tPA recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator; REVASCAT, Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device
Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke Within 8 Hours; SWIFT PRIME, Solitaire FR with the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular
Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke; T, terminus (of the internal carotid artery); and TICI, Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction.
demonstrated that the prespecified criteria for stopping the trial eligible with the use of “standard criteria” to receive intravenous
at the first interim analysis were met. The 2 simultaneous suc- r-tPA within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were randomized in a
cess criteria used for the primary end point were both in favor of PROBE design to receive either intravenous r-tPA only or intra-
endovascular intervention: improved distribution (shift analysis) venous r-tPA plus endovascular therapy with a stent retriever.
of mRS score at 90 days (P<0.001) and increased proportion Groin puncture had to be within 6 hours, and endovascular
with mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days (60% in the endovascular treatment had to be completed within 8 hours after stroke onset.
group and 35% in the nonendovascular group; risk ratio, 1.70; CT or MRI had to be performed before intravenous r-tPA was
95% CI, 1.23–2.33). There were no significant differences in started. Occlusion of the ICA, M1, or M2 on CTA was required.
death or sICH. TICI grade 2b/3 recanalization was observed in In addition, CT or MRI perfusion imaging had to show a mis-
88% of the endovascular group.20 match ratio of >1.2, an absolute mismatch volume of >10 mL,
The Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency and an infarct core lesion volume of <70 mL as assessed with
Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial (EXTEND-IA) was simi- specialized software.19 There were specified exclusion criteria
lar in design to SWIFT PRIME. Seventy participants who were for coagulopathies. Occlusion of the ICA and M1 was present
Table 4. Continued

Outcomes
IV r-tPA
Subgroups Time Subgroups ASPECTS Subgroups NIHSS Subgroups Age Subgroups Vessel Subgroups
IV Age,
r-tPA n Comparison Time n Comparison ASPECTS n Comparison NIHSS n Comparison y n Comparison Vessel n Comparison
None 0 to 3 h to 161 0.79 <11 129 0.57 ≤67 153 1.13 Anterior 330 0.77
treatment (0.33 to 1.88)* (0.27 to 1.2)* (0.54 to 2.37)* (0.47 to 1.27)*
3 to 4.5 h 156 0.88 ≥11 233 0.82 >67 209 0.52 Posterior 29 0.35
(0.4 to 1.92)* (0.43 to 1.57)* (0.27 to 1.10)* (0.05 to 2.56)*
>4.5 h 28 0 .78
(0.03 to 22.1)*
All ≤120 min 345 1.24 8 to 10 378 1.03 8 to 19 452 1.01 18–65 270 1.07 ICA, M1, 220 1.05
to IV r-tPA (0.88 to 1.74)‡ (0.79 to 1.34)‡ (0.78 to 1.31)‡ (0.7 to 1.48)‡ or basilar (0.67 to 1.64)‡
>120 min 310 0.88 0 to 7 271 1.12 ≥20 204 1.37 ≥66 386 1.10
(0.6 to 1.24)‡ (0.67 to 1.87)‡ (0.63 to 2.99)‡ (0.69 to 1.5)‡
Yes 445 1.71 <120 min to 51 1.57 8 to 10 376 1.61 2 to 15 164 1.71 <80 419 1.6 ICA T 134 2.43
(1.22 to 2.40)* randomization (0.51 to 4.85)* (1.11 to 2.34)* (0.96 to 3.02)* (1.13 to 2.28)* (1.24 to 4.77)*
No 55 2.06 ≥120 min 449 1.69 5 to 7 92 1.97 16 to 19 153 1.5 ≥80 81 3.24 No ICA T 366 1.61
(0.69 to 6.13)* (1.21 to 2.38)* (0.89 to 4.35)* (0.84 to 2.67)* (1.22 to 8.62)* (1.11 to 2.33)*
0 to 4 28 1.09 ≥20 183 1.85 EC ICA 146 1.43
(0.14 to 8.46)* (1.06 to 3.21)* (0.78 to 2.64)*
No EC ICA 354 1.85
(1.26 to 2.72)*
Yes 238 2.5 ≤180 min to 2.6 8 to 10 2.6 6 to 19 2.6 ≤80 2.7 ICA+ 2.6
(1.6 to 4.0)║ randomization (1.5 to 4.5)║ (1.7 to 4.1)║ (1.6 to 4.2)║ (1.7 to 4.3)║ (1.2 to 5.9)║
No 77 2.6 >180 min 2.5 <8 2.7 >19 2.4 >80 3.0 No ICA 2.7
(1.1 to 5.9)║ (1.4 to 4.5)║ (1.0 to 7.2)║ (1.1 to 5.3)║ (1.3 to 6.8)║ (1.7 to 4.4)║
>6 h 49 1.7
(0.7 to 4.0)
All <189 min to 96 1.62 8 to 10 142 1.62 ≤17 110 1.49 <70 106 1.67 ICA 30 2.04
randomization (1.08 to 2.42)** (1.17 to 2.24)** (1.05 to 2.11)** (1.13 to 2.47)** (0.67 to 6.21)**
≥189 min 94 1.77 6 to 7 43 1.98 >17 80 2.21 ≥70 83 1.78 M1 133 1.74
(1.07 to 2.93)** (0.73 to 5.33)** (1.17 to 4.19)** (1.03 to 3.09)** (1.23 to 2.46)**
All
Yes 150 1.4 ≤4.5 h to 135 1.8 ≥8 105 2.2 6 to 16 92 1.5 <70 121 2.5 M1 135 1.2
(0.8 to 2.6)║ randomization (1.0 to 3.4)║ (1.1 to 4.4)║ (0.7 to 3.1)║ (1.3 to 4.6)║ (0.7 to 2.2)║
No 56 2.7 >4.5 h 71 1.4 <8 101 1.4 ≥17 114 2.0 ≥70 85 0.9
(1.0 to 7.1)║ (0.6 to 3.3)║ (0.7 to 2.9)║ (1.0 to 4.0)║ (0.4 to 2.0)║
(Continued). *Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]).

†Adjusted difference, 95% CI.
‡Relative risk, 99% CI.
§Adjusted rate ratio, 95% CI.
║Odds ratio, 95% CI.
#Risk ratio, 95% CI.
**Relative risk, 95% CI.
††Adjusted risk ratio, 95% CI.
in 31% and 54%, respectively. The coprimary outcomes were at a median of 210 minutes (interquartile range, 166–251
reperfusion at 24 hours and early neurological improvement minutes) after the onset of stroke, increased early neurologi-
(≥8-point reduction on the NIHSS or a score of 0 or 1 at day cal improvement at 3 days (80% versus 37%; P=0.002). More
3). The mRS score at 90 days was a secondary outcome. After patients achieved functional independence in the endovascular
the release of the MR CLEAN results, an unplanned interim group (score of 0 to 2 on the mRS, 71% versus 40%; P=0.01).
efficacy analysis was implemented on the basis of a Haybittle- There were no significant differences in rates of death or sICH.
Peto stopping rule. The results of the interim analysis showed Recanalization to TICI grade 2b/3 was achieved in 86% of
that the stopping criteria for efficacy were met, and the trial was patients in the endovascular group at a median of 248 minutes
halted. The percentage of ischemic territory that had undergone (interquartile range, 204–277 minutes) after stroke onset.21
reperfusion at 24 hours was greater in the endovascular ther- Endovascular Revascularization With Solitaire Device
apy group than in the intravenous r-tPA–only group (median, Versus Best Medical Therapy in Anterior Circulation Stroke
100% versus 37%; P<0.001). Endovascular therapy, initiated Within 8 Hours (REVASCAT) was a PROBE-design trial
randomizing 206 patients with acute ischemic stroke and an shown that clinical outcome improved with increasing effec-
NIHSS score of ≥6 who had intracranial ICA or M1 occlusion tiveness of recanalization. Those with partial recanalization
by CTA, MRA, or digital subtraction angiography. Patients (TICI grade 2a) did not do as well as those with nearly com-
who had received intravenous r-tPA were eligible if there was plete or complete recanalization (TICI grade 2b/3) reflected
no significant neurological improvement (criteria specified in as both differences in discharge disposition (41.0% of the
the protocol) at 30 minutes after initiation of the infusion and TICI grade 2b/3 group discharged home versus 17.4% of the
vascular imaging at this time confirmed an eligible occlusion. TICI grade 2a group) and functional outcome (34% with a
Groin puncture had to be possible within 8 hours of stroke TICI grade of 2a had an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days versus
onset. There were exclusion criteria for coagulopathies. The 49% with a TICI grade of 2b/3).12,23 TICI grade 2b/3 recanali-
main exclusion criteria on imaging were ASPECTS of <7 on zation was achieved in 59% to 88% of endovascularly treated
nonenhanced CT or <6 on diffusion-weighted imaging–MRI. subjects in the 5 stent retriever trials, whereas in the previ-
After the enrollment of 160 patients, the inclusion criteria were ous 3 studies, the rate had been 25% to 41%, as mentioned
modified to include patients up to the age of 85 years (ini- above. All 5 stent retriever studies showed clinical benefit in
tially, 80 years was maximum allowed) with an ASPECTS of the endovascular group.
>8. Twenty-six percent had ICA occlusion, and 65% had M1 Of the 5 stent retriever trials, MR CLEAN, ESCAPE, and
occlusion. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either SWIFT PRIME permitted use of salvage intra-arterial fibrino-
medical therapy alone or thrombectomy with a stent retriever. lytic drugs, whereas EXTEND-IA and REVASCAT did not.
Intravenous r-tPA was administered to 73%. When results of These data do not establish the benefit of intra-arterial fibri-
other similar trials became known, the Data Safety Monitoring nolytic salvage, nor can they establish lack of benefit. Such
Board recommended the recruitment be stopped because the salvage techniques may be reasonable to use in some clinical
emerging results showed that equipoise was lost, although the circumstances.
interim results did not reach the prespecified stopping boundar- The MR RESCUE trial enrolled patients up to 8 hours
ies. The masked steering committee agreed. Because just 1 anal- from symptom onset and showed no benefit from endovas-
ysis was performed, adjustment for multiple comparisons was cular therapy with first-generation devices regardless of pen-
no longer performed, and 95% CIs were reported. The primary umbral imaging pattern. Three of the 5 stent retriever studies
outcome analysis showed a common OR of improvement in the specified a 6-hour window after stroke onset (2 specified 6
distribution of the mRS score (shift analysis) favoring endovas- hours to groin puncture; the third specified 6 hours to start
cular treatment (adjusted OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.05–2.8). The pro- treatment). Aggregate data from REVASCAT and ESCAPE
portion of patients with an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days was with treatment permitted out to 8 and 12 hours show a benefit,
43.7% in the intervention group and 28.2% in the control group but ESCAPE enrolled too few patients after 6 hours to provide
(adjusted OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1–4.0). There were no significant useful data, and REVASCAT provides no data about patients
differences in death or sICH. Ninety-five percent of those in the who underwent groin puncture between 6 and 8 hours. How
endovascular group underwent thrombectomy. TICI grade 2b/3 much the overall positivity in these 2 trials was completely
recanalization was observed in 66% of the endovascular group. driven by those treated at shorter times is unknown at this
Across the prespecified subgroups, there were no significant time. The only time-dependent data are from the MR CLEAN
interactions according to NIHSS score, vessel occlusion site, presentation, which are not consistent with a benefit of treat-
baseline ASPECTS, administration of intravenous r-tPA, age, ment beginning after 6 hours. It will take patient-level meta-
or time of randomization, although for time of randomization analyses to sort this out.
dichotomized at 4.5 hours; the P value for interaction was 0.9 Every or nearly every patient in the 5 stent retriever studies
with the latter group doing worse. No data are given for those first received intravenous r-tPA. Only REVASCAT stipulated
who underwent groin puncture after 6 hours.22 the specific guidelines to be used to determine intravenous
r-tPA eligibility (“guidelines provided by the European Stroke
Analysis and Conclusions Organization”). EXTEND-IA refers to “standard criteria,” and
None of the 3 earlier studies carried out with primarily intra- the 3 other trials used “national guidelines.” Because it is not
arterial fibrinolysis or first-generation mechanical embolec- the purpose of this update is to address eligibility criteria for
tomy devices showed a benefit of endovascular treatment intravenous r-tPA, we have used the phrase “guidelines from
over intravenous r-tPA in intravenous r-tPA–eligible patients professional medical societies” to address this issue in our rec-
either as a substitute for initial treatment (SYNTHESIS ommendations. Too few data are available from the small num-
Expansion) or as subsequent intervention in those with per- ber of those who did not receive intravenous r-tPA, for either
sistent large-artery occlusion after intravenous r-tPA (IMS III time-based or non–time-based exclusion criteria, to determine
and MR RESCUE). MR RESCUE also showed no benefit for with certainty whether there are characteristics that identify
other patients treated within 8 hours even if selected by mul- those who benefited from endovascular treatment. Two trials
timodal neuroimaging criteria. These studies, using almost (MR CLEAN and REVASCAT) stipulated waiting for a period
exclusively intra-arterial r-tPA and first-generation endovas- of time after beginning the administration of intravenous r-tPA
cular devices alone or in combination, achieved recanaliza- before proceeding to endovascular therapy, whereas 3 trials
tion rates of 27% to 41%. The subsequent trials using stent (ESCAPE, SWIFT PRIME, and EXTEND-IA) did not. On the
retrievers almost exclusively demonstrated improved results basis of these data, a waiting period is not necessary to achieve
for both recanalization rates and outcome. Studies have beneficial outcome in these patients.
All of these studies enrolled participants ≥18 years of uncertain, and further randomized, controlled trials are war-
age. There are no randomized trials of endovascular therapy ranted. An ASPECTS ≥6 was the minimum score used in 2
in patients <18 years of age. Ischemic stroke resulting from trials, thus fulfilling the AHA’s Level of Evidence grading
large-vessel occlusion is rare in children and young adults algorithm for Level A evidence.
relative to older individuals, posing challenges to rigorous Each of the 5 stent retriever trials used different strategies
study of this clinical scenario. Case reports and case series of imaging-based selection criterion in addition to nonen-
have documented that high rates of recanalization and favor- hanced CT or MRI. Common to all was required demonstra-
able outcomes in young patients can be achieved with endo- tion, usually with a noninvasive vessel imaging study (CTA
vascular therapy.24–26 Ideally, appropriate trials would be or MRA), of a large-vessel occlusion before randomization.
done to test the efficacy of endovascular therapy in young MR CLEAN and REVASCAT also allowed digital subtrac-
patients. Studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, tion angiography screening to identify a target occlusion.
Australia, and Canada have shown median times from onset Two trials required noninvasive imaging to be performed at
of symptoms to initial brain imaging for pediatric stroke initial evaluation before intravenous r-tPA was started (com-
of 8.8 to 16 hours.27 This problem of diagnostic delay will bined occurrence of no clot at endovascular intervention in
need to be addressed if trials of endovascular treatment for 12 of 200 [6.0%]); a third recommended the same (no clot at
acute ischemic stroke are to be conducted successfully in this endovascular intervention in 8 of 233 [3.4%]); and a fourth
population. stipulated that it be done at all centers for which this was
Four stent retriever trials used NIHSS scores as eligibility part of local standard of care but otherwise after consent
criteria (>2, >5, 8–29, and >5), and the fifth enrolled patients was obtained (no clot at endovascular intervention in 7 of 98
with a similar distribution of NIHSS scores. From these tri- [7.1%]). REVASCAT stipulated that the imaging study must
als, there are insufficient data in patients with NIHSS scores be completed no more than 90 minutes but ideally within 60
<6 to determine whether there is an overall net benefit from minutes before groin puncture, and for patients who received
endovascular therapy in this population. Further randomized intravenous tPA, an imaging study assessing vessel patency
trials in patients with low NIHSS scores may be warranted. An must be obtained at a minimum of 30 minutes after that start
NIHSS score of ≥6 was the minimum score used in 2 trials, of intravenous r-tPA infusion (no clot at endovascular inter-
thus fulfilling the AHA’s Level of Evidence grading algorithm vention in 5 of 103 [4.9%]). The REVASCAT strategy did
for Level A evidence. not result in a decrease in the number who failed to have a
Four of the 5 stent retriever trials used a prestroke function clot present at the time of endovascular intervention com-
eligibility criterion. REVASCAT and SWIFT PRIME used a pared with the other studies. The goal of intravenous r-tPA
prestroke mRS score of 0 to 1; EXTEND-IA used mRS scores and of endovascular therapy is to recanalize the occluded
of 0 to 2; and ESCAPE used Barthel scores of ≥90 to 100. MR vessel as soon as possible. After the initiation of intravenous
CLEAN did not set a threshold and did not provide data on r-tPA, some patients will experience successful recanaliza-
prestroke function. Thus, there are good data from 4 trials for tion, obviating the need to pursue follow-on endovascular
patients with good baseline function (including 2 that required therapy.28 However, because recanalization occurs in only
an mRS score of 0 to 1) and very few data for those without a minority of patients with large-vessel occlusion receiving
good baseline function. intravenous r-tPA alone (eg, 37.3% in the ESCAPE trial),
All 5 stent retriever studies required baseline nonen- noninvasive intracranial vascular imaging should proceed
hanced CT or MRI. MR CLEAN did not use a specific without delay before or immediately after initiation of r-tPA
ASPECTS criterion for eligibility; it was the only positive to identify the majority of patients who will benefit from fol-
trial that permitted enrollment of patients with ASPECTS low-on endovascular therapy and to expedite its performance.
<6. Although the treatment effect in that trial favored inter- This approach was explicitly taken by investigators in the
vention in all 3 ASPECTS subgroups of 0 to 4 (28 patients), ESCAPE trial, helping them achieve a median CT–to–groin
5 to 7 (92 patients), and 8 to 10 (376 patients), the point puncture time of only 51 minutes.
estimate in the subgroup with an ASPECTS of 0 to 4 was The ESCAPE, EXTEND-IA, and SWIFT PRIME trials
close to unity with wide CIs (adjusted common OR, 1.09; were initially designed with the intent to select and enroll only
95% CI, 0.14–8.46). In the ESCAPE trial secondary analy- patients with small regions of ischemic cores and the presence
ses based on ASPECTS, the risk ratio favoring intervention of salvageable brain tissue (SWIFT PRIME and EXTEND-IA)
was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.7–4.1) for patients with an ASPECTS and/or adequate collateral flow (ESCAPE). In ESCAPE, non-
of 8 to 10 and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.0–7.2) for those with a score enhanced CT and CTA (preferably multiphase) were used
of 6 to 8. EXTEND-IA did not report secondary analyses to select patients with a target occlusion, small infarct core
based on ASPECTS. SWIFT PRIME reported similar ben- (ASPECTS 6–10), and moderate to good collateral circula-
efit for those with ASPECTS of 8 to 10 (OR, 1.62; 95% tion (filling of ≥50% pial arterial circulation visualized on
CI, 1.17–2.24) and 6 to 7 (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.73–5.33), CTA). EXTEND-IA required demonstration of potentially
although the small number of 43 patients in the latter group salvageable brain tissue on perfusion CT (mismatch ratio of
produced wide confidence bounds. REVASCAT reported >1.2, absolute mismatch volume of >10 mL) and ischemic
greater benefit for those with ASPECTS ≥8 (OR, 2.2; 95% core <70 mL (relative cerebral blood flow <30% of normal).
CI, 1.1–4.4) than for those with ASPECTS <8 (OR, 1.4; All images were processed on site with a specialized software
95% CI, 0.7–2.9). On the basis of these data, the benefit package.29 Penumbral tissue was defined as regions with time-
from endovascular therapy in patients with ASPECTS <6 is to-maximum (Tmax) perfusion values >6 seconds that were
not included in the ischemic core. SWIFT PRIME excluded catheter, or cervical guide catheter alone or in conjunction
patients with evidence of frank ischemia in greater than one with stent retrievers. The concomitant use of distal-access
third of the MCA territory or involving >100 mL of tissue. suction catheters during stent retriever mechanical throm-
For the first 71 patients enrolled, an additional inclusion cri- bectomy has been described in retrospective case series.32–34
terion was the presence of target mismatch defined as infarct The advantages of the combined stent-aspiration technique
core ≤50 mL (as assessed by specialized software19) and isch- include a flexible large-bore catheter in a triaxial technique,
emic penumbra ≥15 mL with a mismatch ratio >1.8. After the which provides stability for the stent-retriever; flow reversal
enrollment of the first 71 patients, the investigators switched to to prevent distal embolization during stent retrieval of the
the criterion to ASPECTS of ≥6 for sites that did not have CT thrombus; and the potential synergistic effect of both tech-
perfusion capability. To date, subgroup analyses with the vari- niques of suction aspiration and stent retrieval used simulta-
ous imaging criteria have not been published. In these trials, neously.32,34 Clinical experience has shown the combination
the use of advanced imaging selection criteria had the potential of balloon guide catheters or distal-access/aspiration cath-
advantage of increasing the likelihood of showing treatment eters and stent retrievers to provide rapid, effective, and safe
benefit by enhancing the study population with patients most recanalization.35,36
likely to respond to therapy. However, the inherent disadvan- All the stent retriever trials allowed the inclusion of patients
tage of this study design is the possibility that patients who with proximal cervical carotid stenosis, and all but 1 trial
may have responded to therapy were excluded. In contrast, the allowed the inclusion of patients with complete atherosclerotic
MR RESCUE trial was designed specifically to validate imag- cervical carotid occlusion (SWIFT PRIME). One difficulty
ing biomarkers as a selection tool for endovascular therapy. with this exclusion is that differentiating complete cervical
However, the trial was unable to demonstrate an overall benefit carotid occlusion from a distal ICA occlusion is often not pos-
from endovascular therapy with first-generation devices or in sible on CTA or MRA.37 The number of patients with cervical
the subgroup with a favorable penumbral pattern. None of the 5 carotid occlusion or stenosis was not consistently reported but
stent retriever studies was designed to validate the utility of the was substantial, ranging from 18.6% (REVASCAT) to 32.2%
advanced imaging selection criteria themselves in either the (MR CLEAN). Stenting of the underlying stenosis or occlu-
early or late time windows. Thus, the role of these techniques sion was discouraged in the ESCAPE protocol. Thirty of the
for patient selection requires further study. 75 patients with carotid stenosis or occlusion in the interven-
The overwhelming majority of patients in the stent tion arm were stented during the thrombectomy procedure in
retriever trials had ICA or proximal MCA (M1) occlusion. MR CLEAN. Nine of the 19 patients with carotid occlusion in
The number of patients with isolated M2 lesions was small; REVASCATS were stented at the time of thrombectomy. The
ESCAPE, REVASCAT, and SWIFT PRIME excluded patients management of the underlying lesion was not reported in the
with isolated M2 occlusions, although small numbers of these other trials. Outcomes for the subgroup of patients with cervi-
patients were enrolled in these trials. The distinction of M1 cal carotid occlusion were reported in ESCAPE (OR, 8.7; 95%
from M2 can be difficult in some patients because of early CI, 1.9–39.4) and MR CLEAN (adjusted OR, 1.43; 95% CI,
branches of the M1 such as the anterior temporal branch. 0.78–2.64). Although thrombectomy for patients with cervical
Inadequate numbers of patients with occlusion of other ves- ICA occlusion is clearly indicated by these data, the optimal
sels, including M3 and anterior cerebral artery occlusions and management of the underlying stenosis is not clear. There are
those in the vertebrobasilar circulation, also were enrolled to several potential advantages and disadvantages for angio-
allow assessment of clinical efficacy in these territories. plasty and stenting at the time of thrombectomy. Although
The usefulness of mechanical thrombectomy devices other immediate revascularization may reduce the risk of recurrent
than stent retrievers is not well established, either for techni- stroke, urgent stenting generally requires antiplatelet prophy-
cal efficacy or for clinical benefit. Most of the patients in MR laxis, which has been associated with intracranial hemorrhage
CLEAN and ESCAPE and all of the patients in EXTEND-IA, in this setting. Carotid stenting and intracranial thrombectomy
SWIFT-PRIME, and REVASCAT who underwent an endo- for the treatment of acute stroke resulting from tandem occlu-
vascular procedure were treated with a stent retriever (81.5% sions with aggressive antiplatelet therapy may be associated
in MR CLEAN, 86.1% in ESCAPE). These trials were not with a high incidence of intracranial hemorrhage.38,39 In addi-
designed to demonstrate the superiority of stent retrievers tion, there is some risk for thromboembolic stroke at the time
over other devices such as snares or suction aspiration sys- of stenting. Further studies are indicated.
tems. Therefore, the recommendation that stent retrievers are General anesthesia with intubation and conscious seda-
preferred over MERCI is unchanged from the previous guide- tion are the 2 most frequently used anesthetic approaches for
lines based on the SWIFT and TREVO 2 (Trevo Versus Merci patients with an acute ischemic stroke receiving endovascular
Retrievers for Thrombectomy Revascularisation of Large therapy.40 No dedicated randomized, controlled, clinical tri-
Vessel Occlusions in Acute Ischaemic Stroke) studies.30,31 At als have addressed this issue. The MR CLEAN investigators
the time the present guidelines were written, there were no have reported that the outcomes of the 79 patients in the endo-
published randomized, clinical trials demonstrating clinical vascular group who received general anesthesia were not dif-
benefit or comparing the relative effectiveness of other devices ferent from the outcomes of the 267 nonendovascular control
versus stent retrievers. patients (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.69–1.71.), whereas
None of these studies specified requirements for the use the outcomes for the 137 endovascular patients who did not
of a proximal balloon guide catheter, large-bore distal-access receive general anesthesia were better than the outcomes for
the 267 control patients (adjusted OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.46– Recommendations
3.11).41 Similar data showing worse outcomes in those under- Endovascular Interventions
going general anesthesia compared with conscious sedation
for endovascular were reported in a recent meta-analysis of 1. Patients eligible for intravenous r-tPA should
receive intravenous r-tPA even if endovascular
9 nonrandomized studies comprising 1956 patients (814
treatments are being considered (Class I; Level of
received general anesthesia, 1142 received conscious seda-
Evidence A). (Unchanged from the 2013 guideline)
tion), with the largest study having 1079 patients and the
2. Patients should receive endovascular therapy
smallest study having 66 patients.42 In this meta-analysis, with a stent retriever if they meet all the follow-
compared with conscious sedation, general anesthesia was ing criteria (Class I; Level of Evidence A). (New
linked to lower odds of a favorable functional outcome (OR, recommendation):
0.43; 95% CI, 0.35–0.53; P<0.01), higher odds of mortality a. Prestroke mRS score 0 to 1,
(OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.87–3.58; P<0.01), and more adverse b. Acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous
respiratory events (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.36–3.23; P<0.01). r-tPA within 4.5 hours of onset according to
No significant differences in the rates of asymptomatic ICH, guidelines from professional medical societies,
sICH, or other vascular complications were seen between c. Causative occlusion of the ICA or proximal
the groups. Furthermore, mean time to groin puncture, mean MCA (M1),
procedure time, and mean time from symptom onset to revas- d. Age ≥18 years,
cularization were not significantly different between the 2 e. NIHSS score of ≥6,
techniques. There was substantial heterogeneity (I2>50%) f. ASPECTS of ≥6, and

across the included studies for the outcomes of functional sta- g. Treatment can be initiated (groin puncture)
tus (I2=55%), time to revascularization (I2=60%), time to groin within 6 hours of symptom onset
puncture (I2=83%), and procedure time (I2=91%). In most of 3. As with intravenous r-tPA, reduced time from
the included studies, patients who received general anesthe- symptom onset to reperfusion with endovascular
sia were typically in worse clinical condition at baseline, as therapies is highly associated with better clinical
reflected by their comparatively higher NIHSS scores. Only outcomes. To ensure benefit, reperfusion to TICI
grade 2b/3 should be achieved as early as possible
6 of the 9 studies included information on baseline NIHSS
and within 6 hours of stroke onset (Class I; Level
score. Adjusting for NIHSS score by the use of meta-regres-
of Evidence B-R). (Revised from the 2013 guideline)
sion for the odds of having good functional outcomes yielded
4. When treatment is initiated beyond 6 hours from
an OR of 0.38, which was similar to the unadjusted estimate symptom onset, the effectiveness of endovascular
of 0.43; however, the 95% CI became statistically insignifi- therapy is uncertain for patients with acute isch-
cant (0.12–1.22). Thus, even after adjustment for initial stroke emic stroke who have causative occlusion of the
severity, the possibility of selection bias cannot be completely ICA or proximal MCA (M1) (Class IIb; Level of
excluded. Patients with more severe strokes or poorer baseline Evidence C). Additional randomized trial data are
conditioning may have received general anesthesia or may needed. (New recommendation)
have been intubated before the procedure because of an actual 5. In carefully selected patients with anterior circulation
or expected inability to maintain airway patency. Moreover, it occlusion who have contraindications to intravenous
is possible that the lower recanalization rates observed with r-tPA, endovascular therapy with stent retrievers
general anesthesia in some studies were attributable to greater completed within 6 hours of stroke onset is reason-
numbers of more technically difficult vascular occlusions in able (Class IIa; Level of Evidence C). Inadequate data
those who received general anesthesia. On balance, published are available at this time to determine the clinical
data broadly indicate that conscious sedation might be safer efficacy of endovascular therapy with stent retrievers
and more effective than general anesthesia in the setting of for those patients whose contraindications are time
endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke. However, spe- based or not time based (eg, prior stroke, serious head
cific randomized, controlled trial data are warranted to defini- trauma, hemorrhagic coagulopathy, or receiving
tively establish conscious sedation as the preferred anesthetic anticoagulant medications). (New recommendation)
6. Although the benefits are uncertain, the use of endo-
technique in patients receiving endovascular treatment for
vascular therapy with stent retrievers may be reason-
acute ischemic stroke. Clinical trials are ongoing (http://www.
able for carefully selected patients with acute ischemic
clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01872884, NCT02317237).
stroke in whom treatment can be initiated (groin punc-
The AHA’s Level of Evidence grading algorithm ture) within 6 hours of symptom onset and who have
requires high-quality evidence from >1 randomized, con- causative occlusion of the M2 or M3 portion of the
trolled trial for Level of Evidence A. In accordance with MCAs, anterior cerebral arteries, vertebral arteries,
this algorithm and the results from the 5 recent studies with basilar artery, or posterior cerebral arteries (Class
stent retrievers summarized above, we concluded that the IIb; Level of Evidence C). (New recommendation)
data supported Class I, Level of Evidence A recommen- 7. Endovascular therapy with stent retrievers may
dations but only for a carefully defined group of patients be reasonable for some patients <18 years of
(see Recommendation 2). Subsequent meta-analysis of age with acute ischemic stroke who have dem-
patient-level data may allow these recommendations to be onstrated large-vessel occlusion in whom treat-
expanded. ment can be initiated (groin puncture) within 6
hours of symptom onset, but the benefits are not 15. Intra-arterial fibrinolysis initiated within 6 hours
established in this age group (Class IIb; Level of of stroke onset in carefully selected patients who
Evidence C). (New recommendation) have contraindications to the use of intravenous
8. Although its benefits are uncertain, the use of r-tPA might be considered, but the consequences
endovascular therapy with stent retrievers may are unknown (Class IIb; Level of Evidence C).
be reasonable for patients with acute ischemic (Revised from the 2013 guideline)
stroke in whom treatment can be initiated (groin 16. It might be reasonable to favor conscious sedation
puncture) within 6 hours of symptom onset and over general anesthesia during endovascular ther-
who have prestroke mRS score >1, ASPECTS <6, apy for acute ischemic stroke. However, the ultimate
or NIHSS score <6 and causative occlusion of the selection of anesthetic technique during endovas-
ICA or proximal MCA (M1) (Class IIb; Level of cular therapy for acute ischemic stroke should be
Evidence B-R). Additional randomized trial data individualized on the basis of patient risk factors,
are needed. (New recommendation) tolerance of the procedure, and other clinical char-
9. Observing patients after intravenous r-tPA to acteristics. Randomized trial data are needed (Class
assess for clinical response before pursuing endo- IIb; Level of Evidence C). (New recommendation)
vascular therapy is not required to achieve benefi-
Imaging
cial outcomes and is not recommended. (Class III;
Level of Evidence B-R). (New recommendation) 1. Emergency imaging of the brain is recommended
10. Use of stent retrievers is indicated in preference to the before any specific treatment for acute stroke is initi-
MERCI device. (Class I; Level of Evidence A). The use ated (Class I; Level of Evidence A). In most instances,
of mechanical thrombectomy devices other than stent nonenhanced CT will provide the necessary infor-
retrievers may be reasonable in some circumstances mation to make decisions about emergency manage-
(Class IIb, Level B-NR). (New recommendation) ment. (Unchanged from the 2013 guideline)
11. The use of a proximal balloon guide catheter or 2. If endovascular therapy is contemplated, a non-
a large-bore distal-access catheter rather than a invasive intracranial vascular study is strongly
cervical guide catheter alone in conjunction with recommended during the initial imaging evalu-
stent retrievers may be beneficial (Class IIa; Level ation of the acute stroke patient but should not
of Evidence C). Future studies should examine delay intravenous r-tPA if indicated. For patients
which systems provide the highest recanalization who qualify for intravenous r-tPA according to
rates with the lowest risk for nontarget emboliza- guidelines from professional medical societies,
tion. (New recommendation) initiating intravenous r-tPA before noninvasive
12. The technical goal of the thrombectomy procedure vascular imaging is recommended for patients
should be a TICI grade 2b/3 angiographic result who have not had noninvasive vascular imaging as
to maximize the probability of a good functional part of their initial imaging assessment for stroke.
clinical outcome (Class I; Level of Evidence A). Noninvasive intracranial vascular imaging should
Use of salvage technical adjuncts, including intra- then be obtained as quickly as possible (Class I;
arterial fibrinolysis, may be reasonable to achieve Level of Evidence A). (New recommendation)
these angiographic results if completed within 3. The benefits of additional imaging beyond CT and
6 hours of symptom onset (Class IIb; Level of CTA or MRI and MRA such as CT perfusion or dif-
Evidence B-R). (New recommendation) fusion- and perfusion-weighted imaging for select-
13. Angioplasty and stenting of proximal cervical ath- ing patients for endovascular therapy are unknown
erosclerotic stenosis or complete occlusion at the (Class IIb; Level of Evidence C). Further random-
time of thrombectomy may be considered, but ized, controlled trials may be helpful to determine
the usefulness is unknown (Class IIb; Level of whether advanced imaging paradigms using CT
Evidence C). Future randomized studies are needed. perfusion, CTA, and MRI perfusion and diffusion
(New recommendation) imaging, including measures of infarct core, collat-
14. Initial treatment with intra-arterial fibrinolysis eral flow status, and penumbra, are beneficial for
is beneficial for carefully selected patients with selecting patients for acute reperfusion therapy who
major ischemic strokes of <6 hours’ duration are within 6 hours of symptom onset and have an
caused by occlusions of the MCA (Class I; Level ASPECTS <6. Further randomized, controlled tri-
of Evidence B-R). However, these data are derived als should be done to determine whether advanced
from clinical trials that no longer reflect current imaging paradigms with CT perfusion, MRI perfu-
practice, including the use of fibrinolytic drugs sion, CTA, and diffusion imaging, including mea-
that are not available. A clinically beneficial dose sures of infarct core, collateral flow status, and
of intra-arterial r-tPA is not established, and r-tPA penumbra, are beneficial for selecting patients for
does not have US Food and Drug Administration acute reperfusion therapy who are beyond 6 hours
approval for intra-arterial use. As a consequence, from symptom onset. (New recommendation)
endovascular therapy with stent retrievers is Systems of Stroke Care
recommended over intra-arterial fibrinolysis as
first-line therapy (Class I; Level of Evidence E). 1. Patients should be transported rapidly to the
(Revised from the 2013 guideline) closest available certified primary stroke center
or comprehensive stroke center or, if no such 3. It may be useful for primary stroke centers and
centers exist, the most appropriate institution other healthcare facilities that provide initial emer-
that provides emergency stroke care as described gency care, including administration of intravenous
in the 2013 guidelines (Class I; Level of Evidence r-tPA, to develop the capability of performing emer-
A). In some instances, this may involve air medi- gency noninvasive intracranial vascular imaging
cal transport and hospital bypass. (Unchanged to most appropriately select patients for transfer
from the 2013 guideline) for endovascular intervention and to reduce the
2. Regional systems of stroke care should be devel- time to endovascular treatment (Class IIb; Level of
oped. These should consist of the following: Evidence C). (Revised from the 2013 guideline)
a. Healthcare facilities that provide initial emergency 4. Endovascular therapy requires the patient to be at
care, including administration of intravenous an experienced stroke center with rapid access to
r-tPA, such as primary stroke centers, compre- cerebral angiography and qualified neurointerven-
hensive stroke centers, and other facilities, and tionalists. Systems should be designed, executed,
b. Centers capable of performing endovascular and monitored to emphasize expeditious assessment
stroke treatment with comprehensive peripro- and treatment. Outcomes for all patients should be
cedural care, including comprehensive stroke tracked. Facilities are encouraged to define criteria
centers and other healthcare facilities, to which that can be used to credential individuals who can
rapid transport can be arranged when appro- perform safe and timely intra-arterial revascular-
priate (Class I; Level of Evidence A). (Revised ization procedures (Class I; Level of Evidence E).
from the 2013 guideline) (Revised from the 2013 guideline)
Disclosures
Writing Group Disclosures
Other
Writing Group Research Speakers’ Expert Ownership Consultant/Advisory
Member Employment Research Grant Support Bureau/Honoraria Witness Interest Board Other
William J. University of North None None None None None None None
Powers Carolina
Colin P. Derdeyn Washington University None None None None Pulse Penumbra, Inc*; None
Therapeutics* Microvention*; Silk Road*
José Biller Loyola University None None None None None None None
Christopher S. University of Iowa NIH/NINDS† None None None None None None
Coffey
Brian L. Hoh University of Florida None None None None None None None
Edward C. Jauch Medical University Covidien*; Genentech†; None None None None None None
of South Carolina Penumbra*; Stryker*;
NIH/NINDS†
Karen C. Johnston University of None None None None None None None
Virginia
S. Claiborne University of Texas None None None None None None None
Johnston
Alexander A. University of Covidien*; Microvention*; None None None Lazarus* Codman*; Medtronic- None
Khalessi California, Penumbra*; Sequent* Covidien-ev3†;
San Diego Microvention*;
Penumbra*; Stryker*
Chelsea S. Kidwell University of NIH/NINDS† None None None None None None
Arizona
James F. Meschia Mayo Clinic NINDS† None None None None None None
Bruce Ovbiagele Medical University None None None None None None None
of South Carolina
Dileep R. Yavagal University of Covidien/Medtronic*; None None None None Covidien/Medtronic* None
Miami Miller School Penumbra*
of Medicine
This table represents the relationships of writing group members that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the
Disclosure Questionnaire, which all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit. A relationship is considered to be “significant” if (a) the person
receives $10 000 or more during any 12-month period, or 5% or more of the person’s gross income; or (b) the person owns 5% or more of the voting stock or share of
the entity, or owns $10 000 or more of the fair market value of the entity. A relationship is considered to be “modest” if it is less than “significant” under the preceding
definition.
*Modest.
†Significant.
Reviewer Disclosures
Other Research Speakers’ Ownership Consultant/
Reviewer Employment Research Grant Support Bureau/Honoraria Expert Witness Interest Advisory Board Other
Sepideh Amin- University of Illinois at None None None None None None None
Hanjani Chicago
Nicholas University Hospitals AHA† None None None None None None
Bambakidis Case Medical Center
Karen Furie Rhode Island Hospital None None None None None None None
Laura Heitsch Washington University AHA†; EMF†; None VINDICO*; None None Genentech* None
Genentech†
Philip Meyers Columbia University None None None None None None None
Peter Panagos Washington University None None Genentech† None None None None
This table represents the relationships of reviewers that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the Disclosure
Questionnaire, which all reviewers are required to complete and submit. A relationship is considered to be “significant” if (a) the person receives $10 000 or more during
any 12-month period, or 5% or more of the person’s gross income; or (b) the person owns 5% or more of the voting stock or share of the entity, or owns $10 000 or more
of the fair market value of the entity. A relationship is considered to be “modest” if it is less than “significant” under the preceding definition.
*Modest.
†Significant.
References review and synthesis. Stroke. 2007;38:1091–1096. doi: 10.1161/01.

STR.0000258355.23810.c6.
1. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, Bruno A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk
9. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J,
BM, Khatri P, McMullan PW Jr, Qureshi AI, Rosenfield K, Scott PA,
Spilker J, Holleran R, Eberle R, Hertzberg V, Rorick M, Moomaw CJ,
Summers DR, Wang DZ, Wintermark M, Yonas H; on behalf of the
Walker M. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical exami-
American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular
nation scale. Stroke. 1989;20:864–870. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864.
Nursing, Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and Council on
10. Ciccone A, Valvassori L, Nichelatti M, Sgoifo A, Ponzio M, Sterzi R,
Clinical Cardiology. Guidelines for the early management of patients
Boccardi E; SYNTHESIS Expansion Investigators. Endovascular treat-
with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from
ment for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:904–913. doi:
the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke.
10.1056/NEJMoa1213701.
2013;44:870–947. doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e318284056a.
11. Zaidat OO, Yoo AJ, Khatri P, Tomsick TA, von Kummer R, Saver
2. Hacke W, Donnan G, Fieschi C, Kaste M, von Kummer R, Broderick JP,
Brott T, Frankel M, Grotta JC, Haley EC Jr, Kwiatkowski T, Levine SR, JL, Marks MP, Prabhakaran S, Kallmes DF, Fitzsimmons BF, Mocco
Lewandowski C, Lu M, Lyden P, Marler JR, Patel S, Tilley BC, Albers J, Wardlaw JM, Barnwell SL, Jovin TG, Linfante I, Siddiqui AH,
G, Bluhmki E, Wilhelm M, Hamilton S; ATLANTIS Trials Investigators; Alexander MJ, Hirsch JA, Wintermark M, Albers G, Woo HH, Heck
ECASS Trials Investigators; NINDS rt-PA Study Group Investigators. DV, Lev M, Aviv R, Hacke W, Warach S, Broderick J, Derdeyn
Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analy- CP, Furlan A, Nogueira RG, Yavagal DR, Goyal M, Demchuk AM,
sis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet. Bendszus M, Liebeskind DS; Cerebral Angiographic Revascularization
2004;363:768–774. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15692-4. Grading (CARG) Collaborators; STIR Revascularization Working
3. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke: the National Group; STIR Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) Task Force.
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. N Recommendations on angiographic revascularization grading standards
Engl J Med. 1995;333:1581–1587. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199512143332401 for acute ischemic stroke: a consensus statement. Stroke. 2013;44:2650–
4. Lees KR, Bluhmki E, von Kummer R, Brott TG, Toni D, Grotta JC, 2663. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001972.
Albers GW, Kaste M, Marler JR, Hamilton SA, Tilley BC, Davis SM, 12. Broderick JP, Palesch YY, Demchuk AM, Yeatts SD, Khatri P, Hill MD,
Donnan GA, Hacke W, Allen K, Mau J, Meier D, del Zoppo G, De Silva Jauch EC, Jovin TG, Yan B, Silver FL, von Kummer R, Molina CA,
DA, Butcher KS, Parsons MW, Barber PA, Levi C, Bladin C, Byrnes G; Demaerschalk BM, Budzik R, Clark WM, Zaidat OO, Malisch TW,
ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS and EPITHET rt-PA Study Group. Time to Goyal M, Schonewille WJ, Mazighi M, Engelter ST, Anderson C, Spilker
treatment with intravenous alteplase and outcome in stroke: an updated J, Carrozzella J, Ryckborst KJ, Janis LS, Martin RH, Foster LD, Tomsick
pooled analysis of ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS, and EPITHET trials. TA; Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III Investigators.
Lancet. 2010;375:1695–1703. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60491-6. Endovascular therapy after intravenous t-PA versus t-PA alone for stroke
5. Molyneux AJ, Kerr RS, Yu LM, Clarke M, Sneade M, Yarnold JA, [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1265]. N Engl
Sandercock P; International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) J Med. 2013;368:893–903. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214300.
Collaborative Group. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial 13. Kidwell CS, Wintermark M, De Silva DA, Schaewe TJ, Jahan R,
(ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 Starkman S, Jovin T, Hom J, Jumaa M, Schreier J, Gornbein J, Liebeskind
patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised compari- DS, Alger JR, Saver JL. Multiparametric MRI and CT models of infarct
son of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, core and favorable penumbral imaging patterns in acute ischemic stroke.
and aneurysm occlusion. Lancet. 2005;366:809–817. doi: 10.1016/ Stroke. 2013;44:73–79. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.670034.
S0140-6736(05)67214-5. 14. Kidwell CS, Jahan R, Gornbein J, Alger JR, Nenov V, Ajani Z, Feng
6. Emberson J, Lees KR, Lyden P, Blackwell L, Albers G, Bluhmki E, Brott L, Meyer BC, Olson S, Schwamm LH, Yoo AJ, Marshall RS, Meyers
T, Cohen G, Davis S, Donnan G, Grotta J, Howard G, Kaste M, Koga M, PM, Yavagal DR, Wintermark M, Guzy J, Starkman S, Saver JL; MR
von Kummer R, Lansberg M, Lindley RI, Murray G, Olivot JM, Parsons M, RESCUE Investigators. A trial of imaging selection and endovascular
Tilley B, Toni D, Toyoda K, Wahlgren N, Wardlaw J, Whiteley W, del Zoppo treatment for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:914–923. doi:
GJ, Baigent C, Sandercock P, Hacke W; Stroke Thrombolysis Trialists’ 10.1056/NEJMoa1212793.
Collaborative Group. Effect of treatment delay, age, and stroke severity on 15. Berkhemer OA, Fransen PS, Beumer D, van den Berg LA, Lingsma HF, Yoo
the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic AJ, Schonewille WJ, Vos JA, Nederkoorn PJ, Wermer MJ, van Walderveen
stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. MA, Staals J, Hofmeijer J, van Oostayen JA, Lycklama à Nijeholt GJ,
Lancet. 2014;384:1929–1935. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60584-5. Boiten J, Brouwer PA, Emmer BJ, de Bruijn SF, van Dijk LC, Kappelle LJ,
7. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60, II: Lo RH, van Dijk EJ, de Vries J, de Kort PL, van Rooij WJ, van den Berg
prognosis. Scott Med J. 1957;2:200–215. JS, van Hasselt BA, Aerden LA, Dallinga RJ, Visser MC, Bot JC, Vroomen
8. Banks JL, Marotta CA. Outcomes validity and reliability of the modi- PC, Eshghi O, Schreuder TH, Heijboer RJ, Keizer K, Tielbeek AV, den
fied Rankin Scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature Hertog HM, Gerrits DG, van den Berg-Vos RM, Karas GB, Steyerberg EW,
Flach HZ, Marquering HA, Sprengers ME, Jenniskens SF, Beenen LF, van 29. Campbell BC, Yassi N, Ma H, Sharma G, Salinas S, Churilov L, Meretoja
den Berg R, Koudstaal PJ, van Zwam WH, Roos YB, van der Lugt A, van A, Parsons MW, Desmond PM, Lansberg MG, Donnan GA, Davis SM.
Oostenbrugge RJ, Majoie CB, Dippel DW; MR CLEAN Investigators. A Imaging selection in ischemic stroke: feasibility of automated CT-perfusion
randomized trial of intraarterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke [pub- analysis. Int J Stroke. 2015;10:51–54. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12381.
lished correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2015;372:394]. N Engl J Med.
30. Saver JL, Jahan R, Levy EI, Jovin TG, Baxter B, Nogueira RG, Clark
2015;372:11–20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411587.
16. Fransen P, Berkhemer O, Lingsma H, Beumer D, van den Berg L, van W, Budzik R, Zaidat OO; SWIFT Trialists. Solitaire flow restoration
Zwam W, van Oostenbrugge R, van der Lugt A, Majoie C, Dippel D; for device versus the Merci Retriever in patients with acute ischaemic stroke
the MR CLEAN Investigators. Time to reperfusion and effect of intra- (SWIFT): a randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial. Lancet.
arterial treatment in the MR CLEAN Trial. http://my.americanheart.org/ 2012;380:1241–1249. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61384-1.
idc/groups/ahamah-public/@wcm/@sop/@scon/documents/download- 31. Nogueira RG, Lutsep HL, Gupta R, Jovin TG, Albers GW, Walker GA,
able/ucm_471830.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2015. Liebeskind DS, Smith WS; TREVO 2 Trialists. Trevo versus Merci
17. Pexman JH, Barber PA, Hill MD, Sevick RJ, Demchuk AM, Hudon ME, retrievers for thrombectomy revascularisation of large vessel occlusions
Hu WY, Buchan AM. Use of the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score
in acute ischaemic stroke (TREVO 2): a randomised trial [published
(ASPECTS) for assessing CT scans in patients with acute stroke. AJNR
Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:1534–1542. correction appears in Lancet. 2012;380:1230]. Lancet. 2012;380:1231–
18. Goyal M, Demchuk AM, Menon BK, Eesa M, Rempel JL, Thornton J, 1240. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61299-9.
Roy D, Jovin TG, Willinsky RA, Sapkota BL, Dowlatshahi D, Frei DF, 32. Humphries W, Hoit D, Doss VT, Elijovich L, Frei D, Loy D, Dooley G,
Kamal NR, Montanera WJ, Poppe AY, Ryckborst KJ, Silver FL, Shuaib Turk AS, Chaudry I, Turner R, Mocco J, Morone P, Fiorella D, Siddiqui
A, Tampieri D, Williams D, Bang OY, Baxter BW, Burns PA, Choe H, A, Mokin M, Arthur AS. Distal aspiration with retrievable stent assisted
Heo JH, Holmstedt CA, Jankowitz B, Kelly M, Linares G, Mandzia thrombectomy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. J Neurointerv
JL, Shankar J, Sohn SI, Swartz RH, Barber PA, Coutts SB, Smith EE, Surg. 2015;7:90–94. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010986.
Morrish WF, Weill A, Subramaniam S, Mitha AP, Wong JH, Lowerison
33. John S, Hussain MS, Toth G, Bain M, Uchino K, Hui FK. Initial expe-
MW, Sajobi TT, Hill MD; ESCAPE Trial Investigators. Randomized
rience using the 5MAX™ ACE reperfusion catheter in intra-arterial

assessment of rapid endovascular treatment of ischemic stroke. N Engl
J Med. 2015;372:1019–1030. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414905. therapy for acute ischemic stroke. J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg.
19. Straka M, Albers GW, Bammer R. Real-time diffusion-perfusion mis- 2014;16:350–357. doi: 10.7461/jcen.2014.16.4.350.
match analysis in acute stroke. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32:1024– 34. Deshaies EM. Tri-axial system using the Solitaire-FR and Penumbra
1037. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22338. Aspiration Microcatheter for acute mechanical thrombectomy. J Clin
20. Saver JL, Goyal M, Bonafe A, Diener HC, Levy EI, Pereira VM, Albers Neurosci. 2013;20:1303–1305. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.10.037.
GW, Cognard C, Cohen DJ, Hacke W, Jansen O, Jovin TG, Mattle HP, 35. Nguyen TN, Malisch T, Castonguay AC, Gupta R, Sun CH, Martin CO,
Nogueira RG, Siddiqui AH, Yavagal DR, Baxter BW, Devlin TG, Lopes Holloway WE, Mueller-Kronast N, English JD, Linfante I, Dabus G,
DK, Reddy VK, du Mesnil de Rochemont R, Singer OC, Jahan R;
Marden FA, Bozorgchami H, Xavier A, Rai AT, Froehler MT, Badruddin
SWIFT PRIME Investigators. Stent-retriever thrombectomy after intra-
venous t-PA vs. t-PA alone in stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2285– A, Taqi M, Abraham MG, Janardhan V, Shaltoni H, Novakovic R, Yoo
2295. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415061. AJ, Abou-Chebl A, Chen PR, Britz GW, Kaushal R, Nanda A, Issa MA,
21. Campbell BC, Mitchell PJ, Kleinig TJ, Dewey HM, Churilov L, Yassi N, Masoud H, Nogueira RG, Norbash AM, Zaidat OO. Balloon guide cath-
Yan B, Dowling RJ, Parsons MW, Oxley TJ, Wu TY, Brooks M, Simpson eter improves revascularization and clinical outcomes with the Solitaire
MA, Miteff F, Levi CR, Krause M, Harrington TJ, Faulder KC, Steinfort device: analysis of the North American Solitaire Acute Stroke Registry.
BS, Priglinger M, Ang T, Scroop R, Barber PA, McGuinness B, Wijeratne T, Stroke. 2014;45:141–145. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.002407.
Phan TG, Chong W, Chandra RV, Bladin CF, Badve M, Rice H, de Villiers L, 36. Dorn F, Stehle S, Lockau H, Zimmer C, Liebig T. Endovascular treat-
Ma H, Desmond PM, Donnan GA, Davis SM; EXTEND-IA Investigators.
ment of acute intracerebral artery occlusions with the Solitaire stent: sin-
Endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke with perfusion-imaging selection.
N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1009–1018. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414792. gle-centre experience with 108 recanalization procedures. Cerebrovasc
22. Jovin TG, Chamorro A, Cobo E, de Miquel MA, Molina CA, Rovira A, Dis. 2012;34:70–77. doi: 10.1159/000338903.
San Román L, Serena J, Abilleira S, Ribó M, Millán M, Urra X, Cardona 37. Marquering HA, Nederkoorn PJ, Beenen LF, Lycklama à Nijeholt
P, López-Cancio E, Tomasello A, Castaño C, Blasco J, Aja L, Dorado L, GJ, van den Berg R, Roos YB, Majoie CB. Carotid pseudo-occlusion
Quesada H, Rubiera M, Hernandez-Pérez M, Goyal M, Demchuk AM, on CTA in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a concerning observa-
von Kummer R, Gallofré M, Dávalos A; REVASCAT Trial Investigators. tion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115:1591–1594. doi: 10.1016/j.
Thrombectomy within 8 hours after symptom onset in ischemic stroke. clineuro.2013.02.008.
N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2296–2306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503780.
38. Heck DV, Brown MD. Carotid stenting and intracranial thrombectomy
23. Jayaraman MV, Grossberg JA, Meisel KM, Shaikhouni A, Silver B. The
clinical and radiographic importance of distinguishing partial from near- for treatment of acute stroke due to tandem occlusions with aggressive
complete reperfusion following intra-arterial stroke therapy. AJNR Am J antiplatelet therapy may be associated with a high incidence of intra-
Neuroradiol. 2013;34:135–139. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3278. cranial hemorrhage. J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7:170–175. doi: 10.1136/
24. Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM, Tjoumakaris S, Hasan D, Hann neurintsurg-2014-011224.
S, Ajiboye N, Liu KC, Rosenwasser RH, Manasseh P, Jabbour P. 39. Aghaebrahim A, Jovin T, Jadhav AP, Noorian A, Gupta R, Nogueira RG.
Endovascular stroke intervention in the very young. Clin Neurol Endovascular recanalization of complete subacute to chronic atheroscle-
Neurosurg. 2014;127:15–18. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.09.022. rotic occlusions of intracranial arteries. J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6:645–
25. Vega RA, Chan JL, Anene-Maidoh TI, Grimes MM, Reavey-Cantwell
648. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010842.
JF. Mechanical thrombectomy for pediatric stroke arising from an atrial
40. Anastasian ZH. Anaesthetic management of the patient with acute isch-
myxoma: case report. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;15:301–305. doi:
10.3171/2014.10.PEDS14292. aemic stroke. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(suppl 2):ii9–ii16. doi: 10.1093/
26. Golomb MR, Rafay M, Armstrong D, Massicotte P, Curtis R, Hune S, bja/aeu372
deVeber GA. Intra-arterial tissue plasminogen activator for thrombosis 41. Berkhemer OA, van den Berg LA, Fransen PSS, Beumer D, Lingsma
complicating cerebral angiography in a 17-year-old girl. J Child Neurol. HF, van Zwam WH, Dippel DW, van der Lugt A, van Oostenbrugge RJ,
2003;18:420–423. Majoie CB, Roos YBW; for the MR CLEAN Investigators. Impact of
27. deVeber GA. Delays in the timely diagnosis of stroke in children. Nat general anaesthesia on treatment effect in the MR CLEAN Trial. http://
Rev Neurol. 2010;6:64–66. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2009.228. my.americanheart.org/idc/groups/ahamah-public/@wcm/@sop/@scon/
28. Yeo LL, Paliwal P, Teoh HL, Seet RC, Chan BP, Liang S,
documents/downloadable/ucm_471851.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2015.
Venketasubramanian N, Rathakrishnan R, Ahmad A, Ng KW, Loh PK,
Ong JJ, Wakerley BR, Chong VF, Bathla G, Sharma VK. Timing of 42. Brinjikji W, Murad MH, Rabinstein AA, Cloft HJ, Lanzino G, Kallmes
recanalization after intravenous thrombolysis and functional outcomes DF. Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia during endovascular
after acute ischemic stroke. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70:353–358. doi: acute ischemic stroke treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
10.1001/2013.jamaneurol.547. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36:525–529. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4159.
2015 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Focused Update of the
2013 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke
Regarding Endovascular Treatment: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the
American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
William J. Powers, Colin P. Derdeyn, José Biller, Christopher S. Coffey, Brian L. Hoh, Edward
C. Jauch, Karen C. Johnston, S. Claiborne Johnston, Alexander A. Khalessi, Chelsea S. Kidwell,
James F. Meschia, Bruce Ovbiagele and Dileep R. Yavagal

Stroke. 2015;46:3020-3035; originally published online June 29, 2015;

doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000074
Stroke is published by the American Heart Association, 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231
Copyright © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
Print ISSN: 0039-2499. Online ISSN: 1524-4628
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the
World Wide Web at:
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/46/10/3020
Data Supplement (unedited) at:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/suppl/2017/07/10/STR.0000000000000074.DC1
Permissions: Requests for permissions to reproduce figures, tables, or portions of articles originally published
in Stroke can be obtained via RightsLink, a service of the Copyright Clearance Center, not the Editorial Office.
Once the online version of the published article for which permission is being requested is located, click
Request Permissions in the middle column of the Web page under Services. Further information about this
process is available in the Permissions and Rights Question and Answer document.
Reprints: Information about reprints can be found online at:

http://www.lww.com/reprints
Subscriptions: Information about subscribing to Stroke is online at:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org//subscriptions/
血管内治療に関するガイドライン 29
AHA/ASA Guideline
虚血性脳卒中の血管内治療に関するガイドライン
―2013 年版ガイドラインの集中的アップデート―
2015 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Focused Update of the 2013 Guidelines for the
Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Regarding Endovascular Treatment
A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational tool for neurologists.
Endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS); Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS);
AANS/CNS Cerebrovascular Section; American Society of Neuroradiology; and Society of Vascular and Interventional
Neurology
William J. Powers, MD, FAHA, Chair; Colin P. Derdeyn, MD, FAHA, Vice Chair;
José Biller, MD, FAHA; Christopher S. Coffey, PhD; Brian L. Hoh, MD, FAHA;
Edward C. Jauch, MD, MS, FAHA; Karen C. Johnston, MD, MSc;
S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, FAHA; Alexander A. Khalessi, MD, MS, FAHA;
Chelsea S. Kidwell, MD, FAHA; James F. Meschia, MD, FAHA;
Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, FAHA; Dileep R. Yavagal, MD, MBBS;
Stroke. 2015;46:3024-3039. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000074.
本ガイドラインは，2013 年に米国心臓協会 / 米国脳卒ステントリトリーバーの成績から，機械的血栓除去術

中協会（ AHA/ASA ）により提唱された急性虚血性脳卒中には Merci などのコイルリトリーバーより Solitaire FR
の早期管理に関するガイドライン（ Stroke 2013; 44: 870- や Trevo などの血栓除去デバイスの使用が望ましいとし
947, Stroke 日本語版 Vol.8, No.3, 2013 p27-31 ）のうち、ていた（クラス I, レベル A ）
。
血管内治療に焦点を絞って新しいガイドラインを提唱し急性虚血性脳卒中に対する最初のステントリトリー
ている。本ガイドラインの推奨は，従来の AHA/ASA バーによる前向き無作為非盲検 - 評価盲検（ PROBE ）試
のエビデンスクラスとエビデンスレベル方式と同様であ験は，2014 年 9 月に国際学会でオランダから報告され，
るが，治療に集中した American College of Cardiology/ 2015 年初頭に論文として出版された MR CLEAN 試験
AHA のエビデンスレベル方式を用いている（表 1 ）。（ N Engl J Med . 2015; 372: 11-20 ）であるが，古い世代
従来と異なる点は，推奨クラスにおいて有益性とリスのデバイスが用いられた SYNTHESIS Expansion, IMS-
クの程度が示されていることと，クラス III が有益性な III, および MR RESCUE 試験と比較して血管再開通率
しと有害であるに分けられていることである（表 1A ）。（ TICI 2b/3 59% ）と機能的予後（ OR 1.67 ）が遥かに良
エビデンスレベルにおいては，レベル B が無作為試験のく，死亡率や症候性脳内出血に差がないことが示された。
結果に基づくか（レベル B-R ），非無作為試験に基づくかその結果，当時進行中であったステントリトリーバーを
（レベル B-NR ）に分けられており，エビデンスが不充分用いた ESCAPE 試験（ N Engl J Med . 2015; 372: 1019-
な結果にはレベル E がつけられている（表 1B ）。 1030 ）, SWIFT PRIME 試験（ N Engl J Med . 2015; 372:
前回のガイドラインのうち血管内治療を改訂した理由 2285-2295 ）, EXTEND-IA 試験（ N Engl J Med. 2015;
は，虚血性脳卒中の血管内治療成績が，ステントリトリー 372: 1009-1018 ）, および REVASCAT 試験（ N Engl J
バーにより大幅に改善したことによる。2013 年のガイ Med . 2015; 372: 2296-2306 ）が登録を中断して結果を
ドライン作成時には，標準的治療と比較してコイルリト調べたところ，いずれの試験においても血管内治療群が
リーバーによる機械的血栓除去術の有効性が示されてな標準的治療を受けた対照群より血管再開通率と機能的予
かったため，前回のガイドラインでは，慎重に選択され後で優り，死亡率と症候性脳内出血に差がないことが
た症例では Merci, Penumbra システム，Solitaire FR，明らかになった。従って，今回のガイドラインでは MR
Trevo など血栓除去デバイスが血流再開通に有用と思わ CLEAN 試験とその後の 4 試験の結果に基づいて推奨が
れるが（クラス IIa, レベル B ），転帰の改善は不明としなされており，血管内治療実施症例数は MR CLEAN 試
ていた。また，それまでに非無作為試験で示されていた験の 233 例（全体の 36.8% ）から EXTEND-IA 試験の 35
PDLQLQGG $0
30 Stroke 日本語版 Vol. 10, No. 5
例（全体の 5.5% ）にわたり，中断した 4 試験も完了したるが，本文では NIHSS ＜ 6 はデータが不充分としてい

無作為試験として扱われている。これら 5 件の試験は全る。ASPECT についても≧ 6 を採用しているが，＜ 6
て前方循環系（内頸動脈，中大脳動脈）に限定され，プの症例の効果は不明としている。発症後 6 時間以内の鼠
ロトコールで規定された対象症例は，年齢 18 ∼ 80 歳，径部穿刺については，5 件のうち MR CLEAN 試験を含
IV-tPA 療法必要 / 不必要，NIHSS ＞ 2 から無制限，む 3 件で発症後 6 時間以内と規定していたため採択され
発症前の機能 mRS 0-1 から無制限，ASPECTS ≧ 6 たが，6 時間以上での効果は不明である。これらデータ
から無制限，発症から動脈穿刺まで 6 ∼ 8 時間であっ不足や効果不明で基準を満たさない症例，あるいは後方
た。実際に 5 件の試験に登録された症例は，平均年齢循環 ( 椎骨脳底動脈 ) 系のように試験の対象でなかった
66 ∼ 71 歳，IV-tPA 療法 83.7 ∼95%，NIHSS
（中央値）症例の取り扱いは，各国あるいは各学会により異なるこ
13 ∼ 17，ASPECTS（中央値）7 ∼ 9，発症から動脈穿とが予想される。他の推奨についても，根幹となる議論
刺まで（中央値）210 ∼ 269 分，再開通率（ TICI 2b/3 ）は英文ガイドラインに記載されているため参照いただき
59 ∼ 86%，発症から再灌流まで（中央値）248 ∼ 355 分たい。本ガイドラインの画像診断についての検討は限ら
であった。れており推奨も限定的である（表 3 ）
。全ての試験におい
今回の急性虚血性脳卒中の血管内治療に関する推奨て，血管造影には CTA，MRA，あるいは DSA が用い
（表 2 ）は，上記の臨床試験の結果をふまえて作成されてられたが，脳灌流測定の報告は 2 試験に限られており，
いるが，第 2 項の満たすべき基準のうち，発症前機能に有益性は不明としている。血管内治療の普及に伴い，米
ついては MR CLEAN 試験には項目が無く，他の 3 試験国では血管内治療を迅速に行える包括的脳卒中センター
で mRS 0-1 であったため mRS 0-1 が記載されているが，の確立と，スムーズな患者移送システムの確立が必要と
これ以下の発症前機能についてはデータが乏しいとしてされている（表 4 ）
。
いる。NIHSS についても NIHSS ≧ 6 が記載されてい（文責：柳原武彦）
表 1A 患者診療における臨床戦略，介入，治療法または診断検査に対する推奨のクラス（強さ）
*
クラス（ I 強い）有益性＞＞＞リスク
推奨に対して提案される言い回し：
• 推奨される
• 適応となる／有用である／有効である／有益である
• 実施すべきである／投与すべきである／その他
• 比較効果の言い回し†：
｡治療法 A は治療法 B に優先して推奨される／治療法 B に優先して適応となる
｡治療法 B よりも治療法 A を選択すべきである
クラス IIa（中程度）有益性＞＞リスク

• 妥当である
• 有用と考えられる／有効と考えられる／有益と考えられる
• 比較効果の言い回し†：
｡治療法 A はおそらく治療法 B に優先して推奨される／おそらく治療法 B に優先して適応となる
｡治療法 B よりも治療法 A を選択するのが妥当である
クラスIIb（弱い）有益性≧リスク

• 妥当かもしれない／妥当な場合がある
• 考慮される場合もある／考慮してもよいかもしれない
• 有用性／有効性は不明である／明らかでない／確立されていない
クラスIII：有益性なし（中程度）
［一般的に，エビデンスレベル A または B のみに使用］有益性＝リスク
• 推奨されない
• 適応とならない／有用でない／有効でない／有益でない
• 実施すべきでない／投与すべきでない／その他
クラスIII：有害（強い）リスク＞有益性
• 潜在的に有害である
• 危害を及ぼす
• 過剰な死亡率／罹患率を伴う
• 実施すべきでない／投与すべきでない／その他
* 介入の転帰または結果は特定されなければならない（臨床転帰の改善または診断精度の向上または予後情報の増加）。
†
比較効果の推奨（クラス I および IIa はエビデンスレベル A および B のみ）には，その試験において評価されている治療法または戦略の直接比較が行われていることが
必要である。
PDLQLQGG $0
血管内治療に関するガイドライン 31
表 1B 患者診療における臨床戦略，介入，治療または診断検査に対するエビデンスレベル（質）‡
レベル A
• 複数の無作為比較試験で得られた質の高いエビデンス‡
• 質の高い無作為比較試験のメタ解析
• 質の高い登録試験により裏付けられた 1 つまたは複数の無作為比較試験
レベル B-R（無作為試験）
• 1 つまたは複数の無作為比較試験で得られた中等度の質のエビデンス‡
• 中等度の質の無作為比較試験のメタ解析
レベルB-NR（非無作為試験）
• 適切にデザインされ，適切に実施された 1 つまたは複数の非無作為試験，観察試験または登録試験で得られた中等度の質のエビデンス‡
• このような試験のメタ解析
レベルC
• デザインまたは実施内容に限界のある無作為または非無作為観察試験または登録試験
• このような試験のメタ解析
• ヒト被験者を対象とした生理学的研究または物理的研究
レベルE
エビデンスが不十分，あいまい，または相矛盾する場合の臨床経験に基づく専門家の合意
‡
標準化され，広く使用されており，できるだけ妥当性が確認されているエビデンスグレード分類法を適用することや，系統的レビューについてはエビデンスレビュー委
員会を設置することも含めて，質の評価方法は進歩している。
表 2 血管内治療に関する推奨
推奨エビデンスのクラスとレベル
1. rt-PA 静脈内投与の適応となる患者には，血管内治療が考慮されている場合でも rt-PA を静脈内投与すべきであクラス I；エビデンスレベル A
る（ 2013 年ガイドラインから変更なし）。
2. 以下の基準をすべて満たす場合には，ステントリトリーバーを用いた血管内治療を実施すべきである（新たな推クラス I；エビデンスレベル A
奨）。
a. 脳卒中発症前の mRS スコア 0 ∼ 1
b. 急性虚血性脳卒中に対し専門学会のガイドラインに従って発症後 4.5 時間以内に rt-PA が静脈内投与されて
いる
c. 内頸動脈または中大脳動脈近位部（M1 ）に脳卒中の原因となる閉塞がみられる
d. 年齢≧ 18 歳
e. NIHSS スコア≧ 6
f. ASPECTS ≧ 6
g. 発症後 6 時間以内に治療が開始可能（鼠径穿刺）
3. rt-PA の静脈内投与と同様，発症から血管内治療による再灌流までの時間を短縮すると良好な臨床転帰が得られクラス I；エビデンスレベル B-R
る。効果を確保するため，できるだけ早期に，かつ脳卒中発症後 6 時間以内に TICI グレード 2b/3 までの再灌
流を得るべきである（2013 年ガイドラインから変更）。
4. 内頸動脈または中大脳動脈近位部（M1）に脳卒中の原因となる閉塞を有する急性虚血性脳卒中患者では，発症後クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
6 時間以降に治療を開始する場合，血管内治療の効果は確実ではない。無作為試験のデータがさらに必要である
（新たな推奨）。
5. 前方循環系閉塞を有し rt-PA の静脈内投与が禁忌の患者のうち，慎重に選択した患者では，脳卒中発症後 6 時間クラス IIa；エビデンスレベル C
以内に完了するのであればステントリトリーバーによる血管内治療は妥当である。禁忌が時間に基づくもので
あるか否か（脳卒中の既往，重篤な頭部外傷，出血性凝固障害または抗凝固薬投与中など）にかかわらず，ステ
ントリトリーバーによる血管内治療の臨床的有効性を判断するには，現時点ではデータが十分でない（新たな推
奨）。
6. 急性虚血性脳卒中を発症し，発症後 6 時間以内に治療が開始可能で（鼠径穿刺），中大脳動脈の M2 または M3，クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
前大脳動脈，椎骨動脈，脳底動脈または後大脳動脈に脳卒中の原因となる閉塞を有する患者のうち，慎重に選択
した患者では，有益性は確実ではないが，ステントリトリーバーによる血管内治療が妥当かもしれない（新たな
推奨）。
7. 急性虚血性脳卒中患者のうち，基幹動脈の閉塞を有し，発症後 6 時間以内に治療が開始可能（鼠径穿刺）な 18 クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
歳未満の一部の患者では，ステントリトリーバーによる血管内治療が妥当かもしれないが，この年齢集団では有
益性が確立されていない（新たな推奨）。
8. 急性虚血性脳卒中患者のうち，発症後 6 時間以内に治療が開始可能で（鼠径穿刺），脳卒中発症前の mRS スコクラス IIb；エビデンスレベル B-R
ア >1，ASPECTS<6 または NIHSS スコア <6 で，内頸動脈または中大脳動脈近位部（M1）に脳卒中の原因と
なる閉塞を有する患者では，有益性は確実ではないが，ステントリトリーバーによる血管内治療は妥当かもしれ
ない。無作為試験のデータがさらに必要である（新たな推奨）。
9. 血管内治療を実施する前に，臨床的効果を評価する目的で rt-PA 静脈内投与後に患者を観察することは，有益なクラス III；エビデンスレベル B-R
治療結果を得るためには必要ではなく，推奨されない（新たな推奨）。
10. ステントリトリーバーの使用を MERCI デバイスより優先すべきである。クラス I；エビデンスレベル A
ステントリトリーバー以外の機械的血栓除去デバイスの使用が妥当な場合もある（新たな推奨）。クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル B-NR
（次ページへ続く）
PDLQLQGG $0
32 Stroke 日本語版 Vol. 10, No. 5
表 2 血管内治療に関する推奨（前ページより続く）
11. 頸部ガイドカテーテル単独ではなく，近位バルーンガイドカテーテルまたは大口径の遠位アクセスカテーテルとクラス IIa；エビデンスレベル C
ステントリトリーバーの併用が有益と考えられる。さらに試験を実施し，どのシステムが，再開通率が最も高く，
標的外塞栓のリスクが最も低いかを検討すべきである（新たな推奨）。
12. 機能的に良好な臨床転帰を得る可能性を最大にするには，血栓除去術の技術的目標を血管造影で TICI グレードクラス I；エビデンスレベル A
2b/3 とすべきである。
血管造影でこのような結果を得るには，発症後 6 時間以内に完了するのであれば，動脈内線維素溶解療法等，救クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル B-R
済を目的とした技術的補助手段を利用するのが妥当かもしれない（新たな推奨）。
13. 血栓除去時に頸動脈近位部のアテローム動脈硬化性狭窄または完全閉塞に対する血管形成術およびステント留置クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
術を考慮してもよいが，有用性は不明である。さらに無作為試験を実施する必要がある。（新たな推奨）
14. 中大脳動脈の閉塞により虚血性脳卒中を発症してから 6 時間以内の患者のうち，慎重に選択した患者では，動クラス I；エビデンスレベル B-R
脈内線維素溶解療法による初期治療が有益である。
しかし，このようなデータは，入手不能な線維素溶解薬を使用している等，現在の診療状況を反映していない臨クラス I；エビデンスレベル E
床試験で得られたものである。rt-PA の動脈内投与の臨床的有効量は確立されておらず，rt-PA の動脈内投与は
米国食品医薬品局の承認を得ていない。このため，最初の治療としては動脈内線維素溶解療法よりもステントリ
トリーバーによる血管内治療が推奨される（2013 年ガイドラインから変更）。
15. rt-PA の静脈内投与が禁忌の患者のうち，慎重に選択した患者では，脳卒中発症後 6 時間以内に開始できれば動クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
脈内線維素溶解療法を考慮してもよいかもしれないが，効果は不明である（2013 年ガイドラインから変更）。
16. 急性虚血性脳卒中に対する血管内治療時には，全身麻酔よりも意識下鎮静が妥当かもしれない。しかし，急性虚クラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
血性脳卒中に対する血管内治療時の麻酔方法の最終的な選択は，患者の危険因子，治療手技に対する忍容性およ
びその他の臨床的特徴に応じて患者ごとに行うべきである。無作為試験のデータが必要である（新たな推奨）。
表 3 画像診断に関する推奨
1. 急性脳卒中の治療を開始する前に，脳の緊急画像検査を行うことが推奨される。ほとんどの場合，単純 CT で救急処クラス I；エビデンスレベル A
置に関する決定を下すのに必要な情報が得られる（2013 年ガイドラインから変更なし）
。
2. 血管内治療を検討している場合には，急性脳卒中患者の最初の画像撮影時に非侵襲的な頭蓋内血管検査を行うことがクラス I；エビデンスレベル A
強く推奨されるが，rt-PA の静脈内投与が適応となる場合には，その投与を遅らせるべきでない。専門学会のガイド
ラインに従って rt-PA 静脈内投与の適応となる患者では，脳卒中の最初の画像撮影の一部として非侵襲的血管撮影を
施行していない場合には，非侵襲的血管撮影の前に rt-PA の静脈内投与を開始することが推奨される。その後，でき
るだけ速やかに非侵襲的頭蓋内血管撮影を施行すべきである（新たな推奨）。
3. 血管内治療の適応となる患者を選択するために CT および CTA または MRI および MRA に加えて CT 灌流画像またはクラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
拡散強調画像および灌流強調画像等の画像検査を施行する有益性は不明である。発症後 6 時間以内で ASPECTS<6
の患者のうち，急性期再灌流治療の適応となる患者を選択するために，梗塞の中心部，側副血行の有無，ペナンブラ
の評価等，CT 灌流画像，CTA，MRI 灌流および拡散画像を用いた高度な撮像パラダイムが有益であるか否かを判断
するには，さらに無作為比較試験を実施することが有用と思われる。発症後 6 時間を超えて急性期再灌流治療の適応
となる患者を選択するために，梗塞の中心部，側副血行の有無，ペナンブラの評価等，CT 灌流画像，MRI 灌流画像，
CTA および拡散画像を用いた高度な撮像パラダイムが有益であるか否かを判断するには，さらに無作為比較試験を
実施すべきである（新たな推奨）。
表 4 脳卒中の治療体制に関する推奨
1. 患者を速やかに最も近い認定一次脳卒中センターまたは包括的脳卒中センターに搬送すべきである。このようなセクラス I；エビデンスレベル A
ンターが存在しない場合には，2013 年ガイドラインに記載した脳卒中緊急治療に対応する最も適切な施設に搬送
すべきである。場合によっては，救急ヘリコプター搬送や hospital bypass（最も近い病院への搬送）を行ってもよ
い（ 2013 年ガイドラインから変更なし）
。
2. 地域の脳卒中治療体制を構築すべきである。これには以下の 2 項目を組み込むべきである。クラス I；エビデンスレベル A
a. rt-PA 静脈内投与等の初期救急治療を行う医療施設（一次脳卒中センター，包括的脳卒中センター等の施設）
b. 適切な場合には速やかに搬送できる血管内治療と包括的な周術期医療が可能な包括的脳卒中センターなどの医療
施設（ 2013 年ガイドラインから変更）。
3. 一次脳卒中センターおよび rt-PA 静脈内投与等の初期救急治療を行う他の医療施設は，血管内治療のために搬送すクラス IIb；エビデンスレベル C
る患者を最も適切に選択し，血管内治療開始までの時間を短縮するために，緊急の非侵襲的頭蓋内血管撮影を施行
できるようにすることが有用かもしれない（2013 年ガイドラインから変更）。
4. 血管内治療は，脳血管造影を迅速に施行でき，認定された神経血管内治療医のいる経験豊富な脳卒中センターで行クラス I；エビデンスレベル E
う必要がある。迅速な評価および治療に重点を置いた体制を設計，実行し，監視するべきである。また，すべての
患者の転帰を追跡すべきである。各施設は，動脈内血行再建術を安全かつ適時に施行することが可能な医療従事者
を認定する基準を設定することが推奨される（2013 年ガイドラインから変更）
。
PDLQLQGG $0

Powers 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Powers 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Powers 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AHA/ASA Guideline

2015 American Heart Association/American Stroke

S ince the publication of the most recent “Guidelines for

CLASS (STRENGTH) OF RECOMMENDATION LEVEL (QUALITY) OF EVIDENCE‡

CLASS IIa (MODERATE) LEVEL B-NR (Nonrandomized)

Should not be performed/administered/other *

standard (±IV r-tPA) detection of

Active, Control, Active, Control, Active, Control, Active, Control,

MR RESCUE Mean mRS 3.9 3.9 P=0.99 19 24 P=0.75 7d 5 4 P=0.24 19 20

SWIFT PRIME Improvement in P<0.001 9 12 0.74 27 h 0 3 60 35 1.7

EXTEND-IA Median reperfusion 100 37 4.7 9 20 0.45 36 h 0 6 −6 (−13 to 2) 71 40 4.2

Table 4. Continued

(Continued). *Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]).

techniques. There was substantial heterogeneity (I2>50%) f. ASPECTS of ≥6, and

from the 2013 guideline) (Revised from the 2013 guideline)

References review and synthesis. Stroke. 2007;38:1091–1096. doi: 10.1161/01.

rience using the 5MAX™ ACE reperfusion catheter in intra-arterial

James F. Meschia, Bruce Ovbiagele and Dileep R. Yavagal

Stroke. 2015;46:3020-3035; originally published online June 29, 2015;

Data Supplement (unedited) at:

Reprints: Information about reprints can be found online at:

Subscriptions: Information about subscribing to Stroke is online at:

Stroke. 2015;46:3024-3039. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000074.

本ガイドラインは，2013 年に米国心臓協会 / 米国脳卒 ステントリトリーバーの成績から，機械的血栓除去術

例（ 全体の 5.5% ）にわたり，中断した 4 試験も完了した るが，本文では NIHSS ＜ 6 はデータが不充分としてい

クラス IIa（ 中程度） 有益性＞＞リスク

クラスIIb（ 弱い） 有益性≧リスク

You might also like

本ガイドラインは，2013 年に米国心臓協会 / 米国脳卒ステントリトリーバーの成績から，機械的血栓除去術

例（全体の 5.5% ）にわたり，中断した 4 試験も完了したるが，本文では NIHSS ＜ 6 はデータが不充分としてい

クラス IIa（中程度）有益性＞＞リスク

クラスIIb（弱い）有益性≧リスク