Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in acute stroke: is it time for Justitia to open her eyes?

Hypoxia is a critical component of neuronal death in patients with stroke. Therefore increasing oxygenation of brain tissue seems to be a logical therapy against cerebral ischemia. Oxygen therapy exists in two modalities: normobaric hyperoxia therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO). HBO is a therapeutic procedure in which pure (100%) oxygen is administered at greater than atmospheric pressure in HBO therapy chambers. In this review article, we aimed to summarize the current knowledge regarding the therapeutic use of HBO in acute stroke patients. Literature review and electronic search were performed using PubMed, Medscape, and UpToDate with the keywords stroke, acute stroke, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and hyperoxia. According to the reviewed literature, the use of HBO as routine stroke therapy cannot be justified in acute stage of stroke. More randomized, controlled studies are needed regarding safety and especially effectives of HBO in stroke patients. Also, standardized definitionof HBO should be proposed and used in all future studies.

Refined Sphenopalatine Ganglion Stimulator Placement and Intensity Setting to Augment Blood Flow and Neurologic Function.

Background and Purpose- Two large, randomized trials indicated that sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation improves final disability outcome in acute anterior circulation patients with ischemic stroke with confirmed cortical involvement. This study evaluated 2 refinements in SPG stimulation treatment technique: (1) SPG electrode placement with real-time optical tracking guidance; and (2) stimulation intensity comfortable tolerance level selection using non-noxious facial physiological markers. Methods- This study was a single, active arm trial at 4 centers, enrolling patients with anterior circulation ischemic stroke, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 1 to 6 including arm weakness subitem score ≥1, not receiving recanalization therapies, and within 24 hours of onset. Stimulation level was set based on ipsilateral facial tingling sensation or lacrimation. SPG stimulation effects were assessed by measuring volumetric blood flow in the ipsilateral common carotid artery by ultrasound and grasp and pinch strength in the affected hand before and during stimulation, and by change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale from day 1 to 7. Results- Among 50 enrolled patients, age was median 66 years (interquartile range, 60-74), 44% were female, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale median was 5 (interquartile range, 4-5), and median onset-to-screening time was 18 hours (interquartile range, 9-20). Median implantation skin-to-skin time was 4 minutes (interquartile range, 3-7), and all 50 implants were placed correctly. Comfortable tolerance level was found based on physiological biomarkers in 96% of patients, including 86% in the optimal, low-medium intensity range. SPG stimulation significantly increased common carotid artery peak systolic and end-diastolic blood flow (44%, P<0.0001; and 52%, P<0.0001) and improved pinch strength (42%, P<0.0001) and grasp strength (26%, P<0.0001). Degree of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale recovery by day 7 was greater than in matched historic controls, median 75% versus 50%, P=0.0003. Conclusions- SPG stimulator placement with real-time optical tracking guidance was fast and accurate, and selection of stimulation intensity levels based on non-noxious facial tingling and lacrimation was feasible in nearly all patients. SPG stimulation led to cervico-cranial blood flow augmentation and improved hand motor function. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03551093.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source and Carotid Atherosclerosis.

Background and Purpose- The sources of emboli in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) are multiple and may not respond uniformly to anticoagulation. In this exploratory subgroup analysis of patients with carotid atherosclerosis in the NAVIGATE (New Approach Rivaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global Trial Versus ASA to Prevent Embolism)-ESUS trial, we assessed whether the treatment effect in this subgroup is consistent with the overall trial population and investigated the association of carotid atherosclerosis with recurrent ischemic stroke. Methods- Carotid atherosclerosis was analyzed either as the presence of mild (ie, 20%-49%) atherosclerotic stenosis or, separately, as the presence of carotid plaque. Primary efficacy outcome was ischemic stroke recurrence. Safety outcomes were major bleeding and symptomatic intracerebral bleeding. Results- Carotid plaque was present in 40% of participants and mild carotid stenosis in 11%. There was no significant difference in ischemic stroke recurrence between rivaroxaban- and aspirin-treated patients among 490 patients with carotid stenosis (5.0 versus 5.9/100 patient-years, respectively, hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.87; P for interaction of treatment effect with patients without carotid stenosis 0.78) and among 2905 patients with carotid plaques (5.9 versus 4.9/100 patient-years, respectively, HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.86-1.68; P for interaction of treatment effect with patients without carotid stenosis 0.2). Among patients with carotid plaque, major bleeding was more frequent in rivaroxaban-treated patients compared with aspirin-treated (2.0 versus 0.5/100 patient-years, HR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.63-8.65). Patients with carotid stenosis had similar rate of ischemic stroke recurrence compared with those without (5.4 versus 4.9/100 patient-years, respectively, HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.73-1.69), but there was a strong trend of higher rate of ischemic stroke recurrence in patients with carotid plaque compared with those without (5.4 versus 4.3/100 patient-years, respectively, HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.99-1.54). Conclusions- In ESUS patients with carotid atherosclerosis, we found no difference in efficacy between rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of recurrent stroke, but aspirin was safer, consistent with the overall trial results. Carotid plaque was much more often present ipsilateral to the qualifying ischemic stroke than contralateral, supporting an important etiological role of nonstenotic carotid disease in ESUS. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02313909.

Implant for Augmentation of Cerebral Blood Flow Trial-1 (ImpACT-1). A single-arm feasibility study evaluating the safety and potential benefit of the Ischemic Stroke System for treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: The Ischemic Stroke System is a novel device designed to deliver stimulation to the sphenopalatine ganglion(SPG).The SPG sends parasympathetic innervations to the anterior cerebral circulation. In rat stroke models, SPG stimulation results in increased cerebral blood flow, reduced infarct volume, protects the blood brain barrier, and improved neurological outcome. We present here the results of a prospective, multinational, single-arm, feasibility study designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and potential benefit of SPG stimulation inpatients with acute ischemic stroke(AIS). METHODS: Patients with anterior AIS, baseline NIHSS 7-20 and ability to initiate treatment within 24h from stroke onset, were implanted and treated with the SPG stimulation. Patients were followed up for 90 days. Effect was assessed by comparing the patient outcome to a matched population from the NINDS rt-PA trial placebo patients. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled (mean age 57years, mean baseline NIHSS 12 and mean treatment time from stroke onset 19h). The observed mortality rate(12.2%), serious adverse events (SAE)incidence(23.5%) and nature of SAE were within the expected range for the population. The modified intention to treat cohort consisted of 84 patients who were compared to matched patients from the NINDS placebo arm. Patients treated with SPG stimulation had an average mRS lower by 0.76 than the historical controls(CMH test p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The implantation procedure and the SPG stimulation, initiated within 24hr from stroke onset, are feasible, safe, and tolerable. The results call for a follow-up randomized trial (funded by BrainsGate; clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03733236).

An injectable implant to stimulate the sphenopalatine ganglion for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke up to 24 h from onset (ImpACT-24B): an international, randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, pivotal trial.

BACKGROUND: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation increased cerebral collateral blood flow, stabilised the blood-brain barrier, and reduced infarct size, in preclinical models of acute ischaemic stroke, and showed potential benefit in a pilot randomised trial in humans. The pivotal ImpACT-24B trial aimed to determine whether sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation 8-24 h after acute ischaemic stroke improved functional outcome. METHODS: ImpACT-24B is a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, pivotal trial done at 73 centres in 18 countries. It included patients (men aged 40-80 years and women aged 40-85 years) with anterior-circulation acute ischaemic stroke, not undergoing reperfusion therapy. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned via web-based randomisation to receive active sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (intervention group) or sham stimulation (sham-control group) 8-24 h after stroke onset. Patients, clinical care providers, and all outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference between active and sham groups in the proportion of patients whose 3-month level of disability improved above expectations. This endpoint was evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (defined as all patients who received one active or sham treatment session) and the population with confirmed cortical involvement (CCI) and was analysed using the Hochberg multi-step procedure (significance in both populations if p<0·05 in both, and in one population if p<0·025 in that one). Safety endpoints at 3 months were all serious adverse events (SAEs), SAEs related to implant placement or removal, SAEs related to stimulation, neurological deterioration, and mortality. All patients who underwent an attempted sphenopalatine ganglion stimulator or sham stimulator placement procedure were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00826059. FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2011, and March 7, 2018, 1078 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention or the sham-control group. 1000 patients received at least one session of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation or sham stimulation and entered the mITT population (481 [48%] received sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, 519 [52%] were sham controls), among whom 520 (52%) patients had CCI on imaging. The proportion of patients in the mITT population whose 3-month disability level was better than expected was 49% (234/481) in the intervention group versus 45% (236/519) in the sham-control group (odds ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·89-1·46; p=0·31). In the CCI population, the proportion was 50% (121/244) in the intervention group versus 40% (110/276) in the sham-control group (1·48, 1·05-2·10; p=0·0258). There was an inverse U-shaped dose-response relationship between attained sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation intensity and the primary outcome in the CCI population: the proportion with favourable outcome increased from 40% to 70% at low-midrange intensity and decreased back to 40% at high intensity stimulation (p=0·0034). There were no differences in mortality or SAEs between the intervention group (n=536) and the sham-control group (n=519) in the safety population. INTERPRETATION: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is safe for patients with acute ischaemic stroke 8-24 h after onset, who are ineligible for thrombolytic therapy. Although not reaching significance, the trial's results support that, among patients with imaging evidence of cortical involvement at presentation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is likely to improve functional outcome. FUNDING: BrainsGate Ltd.

Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.

BACKGROUND: Embolic strokes of undetermined source represent 20% of ischemic strokes and are associated with a high rate of recurrence. Anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may result in a lower risk of recurrent stroke than aspirin. METHODS: We compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 15 mg) with aspirin (at a daily dose of 100 mg) for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with recent ischemic stroke that was presumed to be from cerebral embolism but without arterial stenosis, lacune, or an identified cardioembolic source. The primary efficacy outcome was the first recurrence of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism in a time-to-event analysis; the primary safety outcome was the rate of major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 7213 participants were enrolled at 459 sites; 3609 patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban and 3604 to receive aspirin. Patients had been followed for a median of 11 months when the trial was terminated early because of a lack of benefit with regard to stroke risk and because of bleeding associated with rivaroxaban. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 172 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 5.1%) and in 160 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.8%) (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.33; P=0.52). Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 158 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 4.7%) and in 156 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.7%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 1.8%) and in 23 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 0.7%) (hazard ratio, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.68 to 4.39; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was not superior to aspirin with regard to the prevention of recurrent stroke after an initial embolic stroke of undetermined source and was associated with a higher risk of bleeding. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Research and Development; NAVIGATE ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02313909 .).

Effect of EEG Biofeedback on Cognitive Flexibility in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder With and Without Epilepsy.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common developmental disorders in school-aged children. Symptoms consistent with ADHD have been observed in 8-77 % of children with epilepsy. Researchers have been motivated to search for alternative forms of treatment because 30 % of patients with ADHD cannot be treated by psychostimulants. Several studies support the use of a multimodal treatment approach that includes neurofeedback (NF) for the long-term management of ADHD. These studies have shown that NF provides a sustained effect, even without concurrent treatment with stimulants. We aimed to assess cognitive flexibility in ADHD children with and without temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), and to evaluate the effects of NF on cognitive flexibility in these groups of children. We prospectively evaluated 69 patients with ADHD aged 9-12 years. The control group was 26 ADHD children without TLE who received no treatment. The first experimental group comprised 18 children with ADHD. The second experimental group comprised 25 age-matched ADHD children with TLE. This group was further divided in two subgroups. One subgroup comprised those with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (16 patients, 9 with hippocampal sclerosis and 7 with hippocampal atrophy), and the other with lateral temporal lobe epilepsy (9 patients, 5 with temporal lobe dysplasia, 3 with temporal lobe cysts, and 1 with a temporal lobe cavernoma). We treated their ADHD by conducting 30 sessions of EEG NF. Reaction time and error rates on the Trail Making Test Part B were compared before and after treatment, and significant differences were found for all groups of patients except those who had mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal atrophy. Our results demonstrate that in most cases, NF can be considered an alternative treatment option for ADHD children even if they have TLE. Additional studies are needed to confirm our results.

Effectiveness and safety of transcranial laser therapy for acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We hypothesized that transcranial laser therapy (TLT) can use near-infrared laser technology to treat acute ischemic stroke. The NeuroThera Effectiveness and Safety Trial-2 (NEST-2) tested the safety and efficacy of TLT in acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized study compared TLT treatment to sham control. Patients receiving tissue plasminogen activator and patients with evidence of hemorrhagic infarct were excluded. The primary efficacy end point was a favorable 90-day score of 0 to 2 assessed by the modified Rankin Scale. Other 90-day end points included the overall shift in modified Rankin Scale and assessments of change in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score. RESULTS: We randomized 660 patients: 331 received TLT and 327 received sham; 120 (36.3%) in the TLT group achieved favorable outcome versus 101 (30.9%), in the sham group (P=0.094), odds ratio 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95 to 2.00). Comparable results were seen for the other outcome measures. Although no prespecified test achieved significance, a post hoc analysis of patients with a baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of <16 showed a favorable outcome at 90 days on the primary end point (P<0.044). Mortality rates and serious adverse events did not differ between groups with 17.5% and 17.4% mortality, 37.8% and 41.8% serious adverse events for TLT and sham, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TLT within 24 hours from stroke onset demonstrated safety but did not meet formal statistical significance for efficacy. However, all predefined analyses showed a favorable trend, consistent with the previous clinical trial (NEST-1). Both studies indicate that mortality and adverse event rates were not adversely affected by TLT. A definitive trial with refined baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale exclusion criteria is planned.

Recommendations for neuropathic pain treatment.

Damage to the somatosensory nervous system poses a risk for the development of neuropathic pain. Such an injury to the nervous system results in a series of neurobiological events resulting in sensitization of both the peripheral and central nervous system. The symptoms include continuous background pain (often burning or crushing in nature) and spasmodic pain (shooting, stabbing or "electrical"). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain is based primarily on the history and physical examination finding. Although monotherapy is the ideal approach, rational polypharmacy is often pragmatically used. Several classes of drugs are moderately effective, but complete or near-complete relief is unlikely. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants are most commonly used. Opioid analgesics can provide some relief but are less effective than for nociceptive pain; adverse effects may prevent adequate analgesia. Topical drugs and a lidocaine-containing patch may be effective for peripheral syndromes. Sympathetic blockade is usually ineffective except for some patients with complex regional pain syndrome.