SYNTHESIS expansion: design of a nonprofit, pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial on the best fast-track endovascular treatment vs. standard intravenous alteplase for acute ischemic stroke

Treatment of stroke with early imaging and revascularization: when to be aggressive?

Neuroimaging has a key role in the assessment and treatment of acute stroke. Cerebral computer tomography is the first step to differentiate hemorragic from ischemic stroke and to detect, in the latter, early signs representative of the lesion severity and predicting a possible hemorrhagic infarction after thrombolytic treatment.Advanced neuroimaging techniques are relevant in the assessment of the ischemic and/or hypo-perfused area, being an essential tool in uncertain situations or when the time of symptoms onset is unavailable, increasing the efficacy and safety of endovenous thrombolysis by enlarging its therapeutic window and leading to more accurate selection of patients to be treated.Moreover, advanced neuroimaging may be of help in choosing the patients to be submitted to endovascular treatment when occlusion of an intracranial artery is documented, either after intravenous thrombolysis or as a primary approach.Here we describe the impact of neuroimaging in the decisional process in acute ischemic stroke, presenting the literature evidence on the topic, especially regarding the recent trials on endovascular treatment.

Efficacy and Safety Evaluation on Arterial Thrombolysis in Treating Acute Cerebral Infarction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-arterial thrombolysis in treating acute cerebral infarction and further discuss the indications of acute cerebral infarction treatment, in order to enhance the therapeutic effects of arterial thrombolysis. The data of 164 patients with acute cerebral infarction who accepted intra-arterial thrombolysis treatment by using rt-PA or reteplase between 2009 and 2014 at the Department of Neurology of our hospital, were collected, including patients' medical history, characteristics of the onset procedure, intervals between onset and intra-arterial thrombolysis, bleeding or death, and the changing process of patient's main neurologic function after the treatment. The neurological functions including muscle strength, speech, and level of consciousness were chosen for evaluation. Through a review of cerebral angiography, we collected the digital subtraction angiography (DSA) morphological changes of blood vessels before and after arterial thrombolysis to evaluate whether those blood vessels had been reperfused. Thereafter, we analyzed and statistically processed above-mentioned data. The mean time of arterial thrombolysis was 5.7 h. DSA results were as follows: 22 patients had complete internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion; 49 patients middle cerebral artery's (MCA's) Ml or M2 segment occlusion; 6 patients anterior cerebral artery (ACA) occlusion; 58 patients reperfusion after thrombolysis, and the recanalization rate was 76 %. Based on vertebral-basilar artery (VBA) system, 18 patients had complete occlusion, 11 patients had reperfusion after thrombolysis, and the recanalization rate was 61 %. A total of 63 patients had severe stenosis, and they had significantly improved after thrombolysis. The clinical symptoms of patients were improved: 79 out of 164 patients with paralysis had partially recovered their limb muscle strength after operation, while 33 patients had completely recovered, and there was no recovery at all of the muscle strength in 4 patients after operation. In total, 59 out of 63 patients with aphasia had improved their language function, while 19 patients with disturbance of consciousness turned for the better after arterial thrombolysis. Only one patient experienced the cerebral hemorrhage, and 14 cases had gingival bleeding, oral mucosa bleeding, and urethrorrhagia. The overall effective rates of intra-arterial thrombolysis in treating the acute cerebral infarction by reteplase had no significant differences compared to those by rt-PA, and there were no hemorrhagic complications. It is safe and effective if the arterial thrombolysis using reteplase is performed within a few hours after acute cerebral infarction onset because reteplase has a higher clinical efficacy and lower hemorrhagic transformation, which suggests that it may become a new feasible option for clinical arterial thrombolysis.

Endovascular treatment versus medical care alone for ischaemic stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment, particularly adjunctive intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy, in patients with ischaemic stroke.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SciELO, LILACS, and clinical trial registries from inception to December 2015. Reference lists were crosschecked.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials in adults aged 18 or more with ischaemic stroke comparing endovascular treatment, including thrombectomy, with medical care alone, including intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA). Trial endpoints were functional outcome (modified Rankin scale scores of ≤2) and mortality at 90 days after onset of symptoms. No language or time restrictions applied.

RESULTS

10 randomised controlled trials (n=2925) were included. In pooled analysis endovascular treatment, including thrombectomy, was associated with a higher proportion of patients experiencing good (modified Rankin scale scores ≤2) and excellent (scores ≤1) outcomes 90 days after stroke, without differences in mortality or rates for symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, compared with patients randomised to medical care alone, including intravenous rt-PA. Heterogeneity was high among studies. The more recent studies (seven randomised controlled trials, published or presented in 2015) proved better suited to evaluate the effect of adjunctive intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy on its index disease owing to more accurate patient selection, intravenous rt-PA being administered at a higher rate and earlier, and the use of more efficient thrombectomy devices. In most of these studies, more than 86% of the patients were treated with stent retrievers, and rates of recanalisation were higher (>58%) than previously reported. Subgroup analysis of these seven studies yielded a risk ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.75) for good functional outcomes and 0.86 (0.69 to 1.06) for mortality, without heterogeneity among the results of the studies. All trials were open label. Risk of bias was moderate across studies. The full results of two trials are yet to be published.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate to high quality evidence suggests that compared with medical care alone in a selected group of patients endovascular thrombectomy as add-on to intravenous thrombolysis performed within six to eight hours after large vessel ischaemic stroke in the anterior circulation provides beneficial functional outcomes, without increased detrimental effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015019340.

Endovascular intervention for acute ischemic stroke in light of recent trials

Three recently published trials, MR RESCUE, IMS III, and SYNTHESIS Expansion, evaluating the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke have generated concerns about the future of endovascular approach. However, the tremendous evolution that imaging and endovascular treatment modalities have undergone over the past several years has raised doubts about the validity of these trials. In this paper, we review the role of endovascular treatment strategies in acute ischemic stroke and discuss the limitations and shortcomings that prevent generalization of the findings of recent trials. We also provide our experience in endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Endovascular stroke therapy

BACKGROUND

Following the development of intravenous thrombolysis as a successful treatment for ischaemic stroke, advances in neurointerventional radiology have facilitated endovascular approaches to treatment. This article reviews the available endovascular therapeutic options and their evidence-base.

SUMMARY

Initial studies demonstrated that endovascular treatment of ischaemic stroke with intra-arterial thrombolysis and/or the use of clot-retrieval, thrombus aspiration and stent-retriever devices produced early recanalisation and reperfusion and improved neurological outcome. More recent randomised trials, however, have failed to show translation of recanalisation into successful clinical outcome with 'time to treatment' proving crucial. In this rapidly evolving field, combined therapy incorporating intravenous and intra-arterial thrombolysis in combination with endovascular clot-retrieval has been developed and further studies are expected to yield better evidence to guide the optimal treatment of acute cerebral ischaemia.

Update on intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke

The controversial field of interventional stroke neurology has attracted considerable interest within the stroke community, but no endovascular interventional therapies have proved to be superior to intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA), the standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke. In this article, we review the evidence and background of IV thrombolysis for stroke, the clinical application of IV rtPA in practice, and the management of potential complications after thrombolysis. We conducted this review using a search of PubMed for articles published from January 1, 1995, to October 31, 2013, with the following terms: ischemic stroke, tissue plasminogen activator, TPA, alteplase, thrombolysis, and intracranial hemorrhage. Articles were also identified through searches of reference lists and the authors' files. In nearly 2 decades since the publication of the transformative National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke trials, the efficacy and safety of IV rtPA has been consistently verified in international real-world clinical practice. Time from stroke symptom onset to thrombolysis is crucial and probably the most important determinant of success of IV therapy. Thus, optimal care of patients with acute stroke should include community education and standardized protocols to guide immediate patient assessment and triage to medical centers with capability for efficient neurologic assessment, brain imaging, drug administration, and specialized postthrombolysis care.

Machine learning for outcome prediction of acute ischemic stroke post intra-arterial therapy

Introduction

Stroke is a major cause of death and disability. Accurately predicting stroke outcome from a set of predictive variables may identify high-risk patients and guide treatment approaches, leading to decreased morbidity. Logistic regression models allow for the identification and validation of predictive variables. However, advanced machine learning algorithms offer an alternative, in particular, for large-scale multi-institutional data, with the advantage of easily incorporating newly available data to improve prediction performance. Our aim was to design and compare different machine learning methods, capable of predicting the outcome of endovascular intervention in acute anterior circulation ischaemic stroke.

Method

We conducted a retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of acute ischaemic stroke treated by endovascular intervention. Using SPSS®, MATLAB®, and Rapidminer®, classical statistics as well as artificial neural network and support vector algorithms were applied to design a supervised machine capable of classifying these predictors into potential good and poor outcomes. These algorithms were trained, validated and tested using randomly divided data.

Results

We included 107 consecutive acute anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients treated by endovascular technique. Sixty-six were male and the mean age of 65.3. All the available demographic, procedural and clinical factors were included into the models. The final confusion matrix of the neural network, demonstrated an overall congruency of ∼80% between the target and output classes, with favourable receiving operative characteristics. However, after optimisation, the support vector machine had a relatively better performance, with a root mean squared error of 2.064 (SD: ±0.408).

Discussion

We showed promising accuracy of outcome prediction, using supervised machine learning algorithms, with potential for incorporation of larger multicenter datasets, likely further improving prediction. Finally, we propose that a robust machine learning system can potentially optimise the selection process for endovascular versus medical treatment in the management of acute stroke.

Thrombolysis (different doses, routes of administration and agents) for acute ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability world wide. Thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) is licensed for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in the early hours after symptom onset. It has been shown in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the 2009 Cochrane review of thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke to reduce dependency but at the increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Methods to reduce the risk of haemorrhage while retaining or enhancing the benefit could increase the use of thrombolytic treatment. While most available information comes from RCTs of intravenous rt-PA at 0.9 mg/kg, it is possible that other doses, drugs and other routes of administration might increase benefit and reduce the hazard.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risks and benefits of different thrombolytic agents, doses and routes of administration for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to May 2012). We handsearched journals and conference proceedings, searched ongoing trials registers and contacted pharmaceutical companies and researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Unconfounded randomised and quasi-randomised trials of different doses of a thrombolytic agent, or different agents, or the same agent given by different routes, in people with confirmed acute ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality, and extracted the data using a structured proforma. We cross-checked and resolved discrepancies by discussion to reach consensus. We obtained translations and additional information from study authors where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials involving 2527 patients. Concealment of allocation was poorly described. Different doses (of tissue plasminogen activator, urokinase, desmoteplase or tenecteplase) were compared in 13 trials (N = 1433 patients). Different agents (tissue plasminogen activator versus urokinase, tissue-cultured urokinase versus conventional urokinase, tenecteplase versus tissue plasminogen activator) were compared in five trials (N = 875 patients). Five trials (N = 485) compared different routes of administration. As some trials compared different agents and different doses, some patients contributed to two analyses. There was an approximately three-fold increase in fatal intracranial haemorrhages in patients allocated to higher than to lower doses of the same thrombolytic drug (odds ratio (OR) 2.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 6.04). There was no difference in the number of patients who were dead or dependent at the end of follow-up between those allocated higher or lower doses of thrombolytic drug (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19). Higher versus lower doses of desmoteplase were associated with more deaths at the end of follow-up (OR 3.21, 95% CI 1.23 to 8.39). There was no evidence of any benefit for intra-arterial over intravenous treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These limited data suggest that higher doses of thrombolytic agents may lead to higher rates of bleeding. However, the evidence is inadequate to conclude whether lower doses of thrombolytic agents are more effective than higher doses, or whether one agent is better than another, or which route of administration is the best, for acute ischaemic stroke. At present, intravenous rt-PA at 0.9mg/kg as licensed in many countries appears to represent best practice and other drugs, doses or routes of administration should only be used in randomised controlled trials.

Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke

BACKGROUND

In patients with ischemic stroke, endovascular treatment results in a higher rate of recanalization of the affected cerebral artery than systemic intravenous thrombolytic therapy. However, comparison of the clinical efficacy of the two approaches is needed.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 362 patients with acute ischemic stroke, within 4.5 hours after onset, to endovascular therapy (intraarterial thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator [t-PA], mechanical clot disruption or retrieval, or a combination of these approaches) or intravenous t-PA. Treatments were to be given as soon as possible after randomization. The primary outcome was survival free of disability (defined as a modified Rankin score of 0 or 1 on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 indicating no symptoms, 1 no clinically significant disability despite symptoms, and 6 death) at 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients were assigned to receive endovascular therapy, and 181 intravenous t-PA. The median time from stroke onset to the start of treatment was 3.75 hours for endovascular therapy and 2.75 hours for intravenous t-PA (P<0.001). At 3 months, 55 patients in the endovascular-therapy group (30.4%) and 63 in the intravenous t-PA group (34.8%) were alive without disability (odds ratio adjusted for age, sex, stroke severity, and atrial fibrillation status at baseline, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.14; P=0.16). Fatal or nonfatal symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 7 days occurred in 6% of the patients in each group, and there were no significant differences between groups in the rates of other serious adverse events or the case fatality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke indicate that endovascular therapy is not superior to standard treatment with intravenous t-PA. (Funded by the Italian Medicines Agency, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00640367.).

Is bridging with intravenous thrombolysis of any benefit in endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke?

OBJECTIVE

Large vessel occlusions with heavy clot burden are less likely to improve with intravenous (IV) thrombolysis alone. The purpose of this study was to show whether a combination of IV thrombolysis and endovascular therapy was superior to endovascular treatment alone.

METHODS

Data for 104 patients with acute large artery occlusion treated between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed. Forty-two received endovascular therapy in combination with IV thrombolysis (bridging group), and 62 received endovascular therapy only. Clinical outcome, mortality rate, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rate were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups had similar demographic and vascular risk factor distribution, as well as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on admission (mean±SD: 14.8±4.7 and 16.0±5.3; P=0.23). No difference was found in Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction recanalization rates (score of 2 or 3) after combined or endovascular therapy alone (83.33% and 79.03%; P=0.585). Favorable outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of <2 at 90 days, also did not differ between the bridging group and the endovascular-only group (37.5% and 32.76%; P=0.643). There was no difference in mortality rate (19.04% and 29.03%; P=0.5618) and sICH rate (11.9% and 9.68%; P=0.734). A significant difference was found in mean time from symptom onset to treatment in the bridging group and the endovascular-only group (227±88 min vs. 125±40 min; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Combining IV thrombolysis with endovascular therapy resulted in similar outcome, revascularization, sICH, and mortality rates compared with endovascular therapy alone. Prospective clinical studies comparing both treatment strategies in acute ischemic stroke are warranted.

Protocol for the perfusion and angiography imaging sub-study of the Third International Stroke Trial (IST-3) of alteplase treatment within six-hours of acute ischemic stroke

RATIONALE

Intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator improves outcomes in patients treated early after stroke but at the risk of causing intracranial hemorrhage. Restricting recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator use to patients with evidence of still salvageable tissue, or with definite arterial occlusion, might help reduce risk, increase benefit and identify patients for treatment at late time windows.

AIMS

To determine if perfusion or angiographic imaging with computed tomography or magnetic resonance help identify patients who are more likely to benefit from recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator in the context of a large multicenter randomized trial of recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator given within six-hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke, the Third International Stroke Trial.

DESIGN

Third International Stroke Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial testing recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator (0·9 mg/kg, maximum dose 90 mg) started up to six-hours after onset of acute ischemic stroke, in patients with no clear indication for or contraindication to recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator. Brain imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance) was mandatory pre-randomization to exclude hemorrhage. Scans were read centrally, blinded to treatment and clinical information. In centers where perfusion and/or angiography imaging were used routinely in stroke, these images were also collected centrally, processed and assessed using validated visual scores and computational measures.

STUDY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome in Third International Stroke Trial is alive and independent (Oxford Handicap Score 0-2) at 6 months; secondary outcomes are symptomatic and fatal intracranial hemorrhage, early and late death. The perfusion and angiography study additionally will examine interactions between recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator and clinical outcomes, infarct growth and recanalization in the presence or absence of perfusion lesions and/or arterial occlusion at presentation. The study is registered ISRCTN25765518.

Intra-arterial thrombolysis vs. standard treatment or intravenous thrombolysis in adults with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence has suggested that intra-arterial thrombolysis may provide benefit beyond intravenous thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients. Previous meta-analyses have only compared intra-arterial thrombolysis with standard treatment without thrombolysis. The objective was to review the benefits and harms of intra-arterial thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients.

METHODS

We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intra-arterial thrombolysis with either standard treatment or intravenous thrombolysis following acute ischemic stroke. Primary outcomes included poor functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 3-6), mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Study quality was assessed, and outcomes were stratified by comparison treatment received.

RESULTS

Four trials (n = 351) comparing intra-arterial thrombolysis with standard treatment were identified. Intra-arterial thrombolysis reduced the risk of poor functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 3-6) [relative risk (RR) = 0·80; 95% confidence interval = 0·67-0·95; P = 0·01]. Mortality was not increased (RR = 0·82; 95% confidence interval = 0·56-1·21; P = 0·32); however, risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nearly four times more likely (RR = 3·90; 95% confidence interval = 1·41-10·76; P = 0·006). Two trials (n = 81) comparing intra-arterial thrombolysis with intravenous thrombolysis were identified. Intra-arterial thrombolysis was not found to reduce poor functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 3-6) (RR = 0·68; 95% confidence interval = 0·46-1·00; P = 0·05). Mortality was not increased (RR = 1·12; 95% confidence interval = 0·47-2·68; P = 0·79); neither was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1·13; 95% confidence interval = 0·32-3·99; P = 0·85). Differences in time from symptom onset-to-treatment and type of thrombolytic administered were found across the trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis finds a modest benefit of intra-arterial thrombolysis over standard treatment, although it does not find a clear benefit of intra-arterial thrombolysis over intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients. However, few trials, small sample sizes, and indirectness limit the strength of evidence.

Endovascular therapy yields significantly superior outcomes for large vessel occlusions compared with intravenous thrombolysis: is it time to randomize?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We compared outcomes between endovascular (EV) therapy and intravenous (IV) thrombolysis in large vessel strokes.

METHODS

223 patients who had received either IV (n=100) or EV (n=123) therapy were analyzed. Only patients with strokes involving the internal carotid artery terminus (ICA-T, n=45), the middle cerebral artery (M1, n=107) or the bifurcation branches (M2, n=71) were included. The primary endpoint was 3 month outcome based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, good-outcome defined as mRS ≤2.

RESULTS

The good outcome was 44.7% in the EV group and 26% in the IV group (p=0.003, OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.1). There was no difference in mortality or hemorrhage. For ICA-T occlusions, the good outcome was 27.6% in the EV and 0% in the IV group (p=0.004); for M1 occlusions, 40.6% in the EV versus 10.5% in the IV group (p=0.0006, OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.2); and for M2 occlusions, 76% in the EV versus 47.8% in the IV group (p=0.01, OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 10.2). For M1 occlusions, the death rate was 27.5% for the EV compared with 57.9% for the IV group (p=0.002, OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.6 to 8.3) with no difference observed in mortality for ICA-T or M2 occlusions. In the univariate analysis, age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score and occlusion site were significant predictors of outcome and mortality (p<0.0001 for all). In the multivariable analysis, EV therapy (p=0.0004, OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 9) and younger age (p<0.0001, OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.9 to 0.98) were significant independent predictors of good outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significantly higher odds of a favorable outcome with EV compared with IV therapy for large vessel strokes. The data support the rationale of a randomized trial for large vessel occlusions.

Pharmacological revascularization of acute ischaemic stroke: focus on challenges and novel strategies

The only currently approved treatment for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is alteplase, a thrombolytic agent given intravenously (IV) within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, in an attempt to reopen occluded intracerebral arteries. However, no more than 5% of all AIS patients receive IV alteplase, mainly because of too long symptom-onset-to-hospital intervals. Moreover, this strategy is effective for less than half of the patients treated within the therapeutic window. Early recanalization is the most powerful prognostic factor, and novel drugs or therapeutic strategies are primarily aimed at improving alteplase efficacy to rapidly and safely reopen the occluded arteries. Because IV alteplase-resistant thrombi are those with the largest clot burden, responsible for the most devastating brain-tissue infarctions, development of novel approved AIS therapies is an urgent priority. At present, in the absence of controlled trials, no valid recommendations can be made. However, the most promising emerging strategy is a combination of standard or low-dose IV alteplase with an intra-arterial (IA) procedure, including additional endovascular thrombolytic and/or mechanical clot retrieval. Notably, results of open trials using the IA route had relatively disappointing clinical outcomes, despite remarkable arterial recanalization rates. Controlled trials are urgently needed to evaluate strategies including an IA route. In addition, logistic and cost constraints will likely limit their routine use, even in industrialized countries. Combining of another IV drug and IV alteplase is a far less studied option, although much easier to implement. Add-on IV drugs could be an antiplatelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist, a direct thrombin inhibitor or a second thrombolytic agent, e.g. tenecteplase. However, neuroimaging to measure the clot burden and infarction size will probably be necessary to predict IV alteplase failure and the subsequent use of these eventual additional therapies.