Multimodal CT or MRI for IV thrombolysis in ischemic stroke with unknown time of onset

Abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate differences in procedure times, safety, and efficacy outcomes comparing 2 different protocols to enable thrombolysis in the extended or unknown time window after stroke onset with either multimodal CT or MRI.MethodsPatients with ischemic stroke in the extended or unknown time window who received IV thrombolysis between January 2011 and May 2019 were identified from an institutional registry. Imaging-based selection was done by multimodal CT or MRI according to institutional treatment algorithms.ResultsIV thrombolysis was performed in 100 patients (54.3%) based on multimodal CT imaging and in 84 patients (45.7%) based on MRI. Baseline clinical data, including stroke severity and time from last seen normal to hospital admission, were similar in patients with CT and MRI. Door-to-needle times were shorter in patients with CT-based selection (median [interquartile range] 45 [37–62] minutes vs 75 [59–90] minutes; mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] −28 minutes [−35 to −21]). No differences were detected regarding the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (2 [2.0%] vs 4 [4.8%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] [95% CI] 0.47 [0.08–2.83]) and favorable outcome at day 90 (25 [33.8%] vs 33 [42.9%]; aOR 0.95 [0.45–2.02]).ConclusionIV thrombolysis in ischemic stroke in the unknown or extended time window appeared safe in CT- and MRI-selected patients, while the use of CT imaging led to faster door-to-needle times.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with ischemic stroke in the extended or unknown time window, imaging-based selection for IV thrombolysis by multimodal CT compared to MRI led to shorter door-to-needle times.