Contrast-induced encephalopathy (CIE) is an adverse event associated with diagnostic and therapeutic endovascular procedures. Decades of animal and human research support a mechanistic role for pathological blood-brain barrier dysfunction (BBBd). Here, we describe an institutional case series and review the literature supporting a mechanistic role for BBBd in CIE.

A literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from inception to January 31, 2022. We searched our institutional neurovascular database for cases of CIE following endovascular treatment of cerebrovascular disease during a 6-month period. Informed consent was obtained in all cases.

Review of the literature revealed risk factors for BBBd and CIE, including microvascular disease, pathological neuroinflammation, severe procedural hypertension, iodinated contrast load and altered cerebral blood flow dynamics. In our institutional series, 6 of 52 (11.5%) of patients undergoing therapeutic neuroendovascular procedures developed CIE during the study period. Four patients were treated for ischemic stroke and two patients for recurrent cerebral aneurysms. Mechanical stenting or thrombectomy were utilized in all cases.

In this institutional case series and literature review of animal and human data, we identified numerous shared risk factors for CIE and BBBd, including microvascular disease, increased procedure length, large contrast volumes, severe intraoperative hypertension and use of mechanical devices that may induce iatrogenic endothelial injury.

Collateral status is an indicator of a favorable outcome in stroke. Leptomeningeal collaterals provide alternative routes for brain perfusion following an arterial occlusion or flow-limiting stenosis. Using a large cohort of ischemic stroke patients, we examined the relative contribution of various demographic, laboratory, and clinical variables in explaining variability in collateral status.

Patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation were enrolled in a multi-center hospital-based observational study. Intracranial occlusions and collateral status were identified and graded using multiphase computed tomography angiography. Based on the percentage of affected territory filled by collateral supply, collaterals were graded as either poor (0–49%), good (50–99%), or optimal (100%). Between-group differences in demographic, laboratory, and clinical factors were explored using ordinal regression models. Further, we explored the contribution of measured variables in explaining variance in collateral status.

386 patients with collateral status classified as poor (n = 64), good (n = 125), and optimal (n = 197) were included. Median time from symptom onset to CT was 120 (IQR: 78–246) minutes. In final multivariable model, male sex (OR 1.9, 95% CIs [1.2, 2.9], p = 0.005) and leukocytosis (OR 1.1, 95% CIs [1.1, 1.2], p = 0.001) were associated with poor collaterals. Measured variables only explained 44.8–53.0% of the observed between-patient variance in collaterals.

Male sex and leukocytosis are associated with poorer collaterals. Nearly half of the variance in collateral flow remains unexplained and could be in part due to genetic differences.

We examined the return on investment (ROI) from the Endovascular Reperfusion Alberta (ERA) project, a provincially funded population-wide strategy to improve access to endovascular therapy (EVT), to inform policy regarding sustainability.

We calculated net benefit (NB) as benefit minus cost and ROI as benefit divided by cost. Patients treated with EVT and their controls were identified from the ESCAPE trial. Using the provincial administrative databases, their health services utilization (HSU), including inpatient, outpatient, physician, long-term care services, and prescription drugs, were compared. This benefit was then extrapolated to the number of patients receiving EVT increased in 2018 and 2019 by the ERA implementation. We used three time horizons, including short (90 days), medium (1 year), and long-term (5 years).

EVT was associated with a reduced gross HSU cost for all the three time horizons. Given the total costs of ERA were $2.04 million in 2018 ($11,860/patient) and $3.73 million in 2019 ($17,070/patient), NB per patient in 2018 (2019) was estimated at −$7,313 (−$12,524), $54,592 ($49,381), and $47,070 ($41,859) for short, medium, and long-term time horizons, respectively. Total NB for the province in 2018 (2019) were −$1.26 (−$2.74), $9.40 ($10.78), and $8.11 ($9.14) million; ROI ratios were 0.4 (0.3), 5.6 (3.9) and 5.0 (3.5). Probabilities of ERA being cost saving were 39% (31%), 97% (96%), and 94% (91%), for short, medium, and long-term time horizons, respectively.

The ERA program was cost saving in the medium and long-term time horizons. Results emphasized the importance of considering a broad range of HSU and long-term impact to capture the full ROI.

During the Randomized Assessment of Rapid Endovascular Treatment (EVT) of Ischemic Stroke (ESCAPE) trial, patient-level micro-costing data were collected. We report a cost-effectiveness analysis of EVT, using ESCAPE trial data and Markov simulation, from a universal, single-payer system using a societal perspective over a patient’s lifetime.

Primary data collection alongside the ESCAPE trial provided a 3-month trial-specific, non-model, based cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). A Markov model utilizing ongoing lifetime costs and life expectancy from the literature was built to simulate the cost per QALY adopting a lifetime horizon. Health states were defined using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Uncertainty was explored using scenario analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

The 3-month trial-based analysis resulted in a cost per QALY of $201,243 of EVT compared to the best standard of care. In the model-based analysis, using a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon, EVT dominated the standard of care; EVT was both more effective and less costly than the standard of care (−$91). When the time horizon was shortened to 1 year, EVT remains cost savings compared to standard of care (∼$15,376 per QALY gained with EVT). However, if the estimate of clinical effectiveness is 4% less than that demonstrated in ESCAPE, EVT is no longer cost savings compared to standard of care.

Results support the adoption of EVT as a treatment option for acute ischemic stroke, as the increase in costs associated with caring for EVT patients was recouped within the first year of stroke, and continued to provide cost savings over a patient’s lifetime.

Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01778335

A Canadian Stroke Best Practices consensus statement on Acute Stroke Management during pregnancy was published in 2018. The state of individual practice, however, is unknown.

A survey on treatment of acute stroke in pregnant and post-partum women was distributed via the Canadian Stroke Consortium email list. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and proportions) were calculated for demographic and response variables and free-text responses were coded for thematic content.

Thirty-five participants completed the survey; 12 had experience with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA), endovascular therapy (EVT), or both in pregnant patients. None had treatment-related complications. The majority (92%) of those who had not yet encountered the issue in practice expressed some reservation about giving IV-tPA to an otherwise eligible pregnant woman. In a theoretical scenario where an otherwise eligible pregnant woman was a candidate for both IV-tPA and EVT, 58% of respondents would have opted for EVT alone. Amongst this cohort comprised mainly of stroke sub-specialists, more than a third had treated pregnant patients with reperfusion therapy.

The reported safety experience with both IV-tPA and EVT was reassuring. Overall, there was a hesitancy towards use of IV-tPA in pregnancy that is discordant with the recent consensus statement. Possible barriers to uptake identified through thematic analysis were concerns regarding risks of bleeding in the pregnant patient, presence of EVT as a perceived alternative, and the need for express consent from the patient and family.

Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is effective in reducing disability in selected patients with stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO), but access to this treatment is suboptimal.

We examined the proportion of patients with LVO who did not receive EVT, the reasons for non-treatment, and the association between time from onset and probability of treatment.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with acute stroke and LVO presenting between January 2017 and June 2018. We used multivariable log-binomial models to determine the association between time and probability of treatment with and without adjustment for age, sex, dementia, active cancer, baseline disability, stroke severity, and evidence of ischemia on computerized tomography.

We identified 256 patients (51% female, median age 74 [interquartile range, IQR 63.5, 82.5]), of whom 59% did not receive EVT. The main reasons for not treating with EVT were related to occlusion characteristics or infarct size. The median time from onset to EVT center arrival was longer among non-treated patients (218 minutes [142, 302]) than those who were treated (180 minutes [104, 265], p = 0.03). Among patients presenting within 6 hours of onset, the relative risk (RR) of receiving EVT decreased by 3% with every 10-minute delay in arrival to EVT center (adjusted RR 0.97 CI95 [0.95, 0.99]). This association was not found in the overall cohort.

The proportion of patients with acute stroke and confirmed LVO who do not undergo EVT is substantial. Minimizing delays in arrival to EVT center may optimize the delivery of this treatment.