• Alfonso Ciccone and Gregory J del Zoppo.
• Stroke Unit and Department of Neurology, "Carlo Poma" Hospital, Strada Lago Paiolo 10, 46100, Mantua, Italy, alfonso.ciccone@aopoma.it.
• Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2014 Jan 1;14(1):416.

AbstractThe perceived advantages of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in terms of recanalization, the multimodal and targeted approaches, and perhaps the more permissive rules on devices than on medications for their licensing favored the assumption that endovascular treatment is superior to intravenous thrombolysis for acute treatment of ischemic stroke, and its adoption in more advanced stroke centers. However, this assumption has been questioned by recent clinical trial experience showing that endovascular treatment is not superior to intravenous thrombolysis. The new evidence has changed the perception and the importance of conducting randomized trials in this area. This summary examines the background and outcomes of the latest experience with endovascular techniques in acute stroke treatment based on historical data. The new challenge is how to study the latest generation of devices called stent retrievers, which are faster in recanalizing and easier to use, in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. In the meantime, the available evidence does not provide support for the use of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke in clinical practice.

8 keywords...

hide…