Published Online
on May 31, 2007

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2007

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 38/7/2191    most recent STROKEAHA.106.465567v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ciccone, A. Articles by Sterzi, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ciccone, A. Articles by Sterzi, R. Related Collections Acute Cerebral Infarction Thrombolysis Angioplasty and Stenting Related Article

Submitted on January 12, 2007
Revised on February 6, 2007
Accepted on February 28, 2007

Debunking 7 Myths That Hamper the Realization of Randomized Controlled Trials on Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke

Alfonso Ciccone MD^*; Luca Valvassori MD; Roberto Gasparotti MD; Francesco Scomazzoni MD; Elena Ballabio MD; and Roberto Sterzi MD

From Stroke Unit and Department of Neurology (A.C., R.S.), "Niguarda Ca’ Granda" Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Neuroradiology (L.V.), "Niguarda Ca’ Granda" Hospital, Milan, Italy; Neuroradiology Unit (R.G.), Spedali Civili, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy; Neurointerventional Unit (F.S.), "S. Raffaele" Hospital, Milan, Italy; and the Neurological Clinic (E.B.), "Policlinico" Hospital, University of Milan, Italy.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Alfonso.Ciccone{at}ospedaleniguarda.it.

Background and Purpose--Although intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is the standard treatment for patients with ischemic stroke occurring within 3 hours from symptom onset, a few interventional neuroradiologists have been treating this category of patients by an intra-arterial (IA) route for >25 years. However, evidence is still required to support the clinical feeling that IA treatment, which needs longer time and greater complexity, leads to a better outcome. Therefore, the objective of the present review was to analyze beliefs and myths underlying the selection of patients for IA thrombolysis.

Methods and Results--We identified and debunked the following myths on IA thrombolysis: (1) IA thrombolysis works better than IV because it achieves higher recanalization rates; (2) IA thrombolysis works better than IV after the 3-hour window; (3) IA thrombolysis works better than IV in vertebrobasilar stroke; (4) carotid duplex, transcranial doppler, CT angiography, or MRA should be used to screen for major vessel occlusion treatable with IA thrombolysis; (5) to be treated with IA thrombolysis, patients should be selected with diffusion/perfusion MRI; (6) IA thrombolysis should be used as a "rescue" therapy for IV thrombolysis; and (7) the efficacy of IA thrombolysis depends on the thrombolytic agent or the device used.

Conclusion--Evidence on acute stroke management with IA thrombolysis is scant. Therefore, neither clinicians nor patients have enough information to make truly informed decisions about the most appropriate treatment. Only randomized controlled trials can clear uncertainties about the possible superiority of IA over IV thrombolysis. Regretfully, case series on IA treatment have limited the organization of such trials and have only favored the spread of myths.

Key words: cerebrovascular accident • cerebrovascular disease • interventional neuroradiology • ischemia • neuroradiology • randomized controlled trials • stroke • thrombolysis • systematic reviews

Related Article:

Intravenous or Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis?: It’s Time to Find the Right Approach for the Right Patient

Heinrich P. Mattle
Stroke 2007 38: 2038-2040. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A Ciccone, L Valvassori, M Ponzio, E Ballabio, R Gasparotti, M Sessa, F Scomazzoni, P Tiraboschi, R Sterzi, and the SYNTHESIS Investigators Intra-arterial or intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke? The SYNTHESIS pilot trial JNIS, October 30, 2009; (2009) jnis.2009.001388v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R.G. Nogueira, A.J. Yoo, F.S. Buonanno, and J.A. Hirsch Endovascular Approaches to Acute Stroke, Part 2: A Comprehensive Review of Studies and Trials AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., May 1, 2009; 30(5): 859 - 875. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. W. Decker, L. G. Stead, M. F. Bellolio, R. M. Gilmore, and A. A. Rabinstein Percutaneous Clot Removal in Acute Ischemic Stroke--Reply Arch Neurol, February 1, 2009; 66(2): 284 - 284. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Mandava and T. A. Kent Percutaneous Clot Removal in Acute Ischemic Stroke Arch Neurol, February 1, 2009; 66(2): 283 - 284. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Nagel, P. D. Schellinger, M. Hartmann, E. Juettler, H. B. Huttner, P. Ringleb, S. Schwab, and M. Kohrmann Therapy of Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: Intraarterial Thrombolysis Alone vs Bridging Therapy Stroke, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 140 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Nichols, P. Khatri, T. Tomsick, and J. Broderick Advantages of a Combined Approach to Recanalization Therapy Stroke, April 1, 2008; 39(4): e71 - e71. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Valvassori, A. Ciccone, and R. Sterzi Response to Letter by Nichols et al Stroke, April 1, 2008; 39(4): e72 - e72. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Kent and P. Mandava Recanalization Rates Can Be Misleading Stroke, October 1, 2007; 38(10): e103 - e103. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. P. Mattle Intravenous or Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis?: It's Time to Find the Right Approach for the Right Patient Stroke, July 1, 2007; 38(7): 2038 - 2040. [Full Text] [PDF]