Fifty Years of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment: A Personal History

James C Grotta
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000519843
Abstract:Background: It has been 50 years since the first explorations of the physiology of cerebral ischemia by measuring cerebral blood flow (CBF), and 25 years since the approval of tissue plasminogen activator for treating acute ischemic stroke. My personal career began and matured during those eras. Here, I provide my perspective on the evolution of acute stroke research and treatment from 1971 to the present, with some in-depth discussion of the National Institutes of Neurologic Disease and Stroke (NINDS) tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) stroke trial and development of mobile stroke units. Summary: Studies of CBF and metabolism in acute stroke patients revealed graded tissue injury that was dependent on the duration of ischemia. Subsequent animal research unraveled the biochemical cascade of events occurring at the cellular level after cerebral ischemia. After a decade of failed translation, the development of a relatively safe thrombolytic allowed us to achieve reperfusion and apply the lessons from earlier research to achieve positive clinical results. The successful conduct of the NINDS tPA stroke study coupled with positive outcomes from companion tPA studies around the world created the specialty of vascular neurology. This was followed by an avalanche of research in imaging, a focus on enhancing reperfusion through thrombectomy, and improving delivery of faster treatment culminating in mobile stroke units. Key Messages: The last half century has seen the birth and evolution of successful acute stroke treatment. More research is needed in developing new drugs and catheters to build on the advances we have already made with reperfusion and also in evolving our systems of care to get more patients treated more quickly in the prehospital setting. The history of stroke treatment over the last 50 years exemplifies that medical "science" is an evolving discipline worth an entire career's dedication. What was impossible 50 years ago is today's standard of care, what we claim as dogma today will be laughed at a decade from now, and what appears currently impossible will be tomorrow's realities.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?