Background: and Purpose Knowledge about different etiologies of non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and their outcomes is scarce. Methods: We assessed prevalence of pre-specified ICH etiologies and their association with outcomes in consecutive ICH patients enrolled in the prospective Swiss Stroke Registry (2014 to 2019). Results We included 2,650 patients (mean±standard deviation age 72±14 years, 46.5% female, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 8 [interquartile range, 3 to 15]). Etiology was as follows: hypertension, 1,238 (46.7%); unknown, 566 (21.4%); antithrombotic therapy, 227 (8.6%); cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), 217 (8.2%); macrovascular cause, 128 (4.8%); other determined etiology, 274 patients (10.3%). At 3 months, 880 patients (33.2%) were functionally independent and 664 had died (25.1%). ICH due to hypertension had a higher odds of functional independence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.77; P=0.05) and lower mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.86; P=0.003). ICH due to antithrombotic therapy had higher mortality (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.61; P=0.045). Within 3 months, 4.2% of patients had cerebrovascular events. The rate of ischemic stroke was higher than that of recurrent ICH in all etiologies but CAA and unknown etiology. CAA had high odds of recurrent ICH (aOR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.48 to 7.69; P=0.004) while the odds was lower in ICH due to hypertension (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.93; P=0.031). Conclusions Although hypertension is the leading etiology of ICH, other etiologies are frequent. One-third of ICH patients are functionally independent at 3 months. Except for patients with presumed CAA, the risk of ischemic stroke within 3 months of ICH was higher than the risk of recurrent hemorrhage.

Background: and Purpose This study aimed to investigate the effect of endovascular treatment (EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis [IVT]) versus IVT alone on outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO) attributable to cervical artery dissection (CeAD). Methods: This multinational cohort study was conducted based on prospectively collected data from the EVA-TRISP (EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients) collaboration. Consecutive patients (2015–2019) with AIS-LVO attributable to CeAD treated with EVT and/or IVT were included. Primary outcome measures were (1) favorable 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) and (2) complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale 2b/3). Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models were calculated (unadjusted, adjusted). Secondary analyses were performed in the patients with LVO in the anterior circulation (LVOant) including propensity score matching. Results: Among 290 patients, 222 (76.6%) had EVT and 68 (23.4%) IVT alone. EVT-treated patients had more severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, median [interquartile range]: 14 [10–19] vs. 4 [2–7], P<0.001). The frequency of favorable 3-month outcome did not differ significantly between both groups (EVT: 64.0% vs. IVT: 86.8%; ORadjusted 0.56 [0.24–1.32]). EVT was associated with higher rates of recanalization (80.5% vs. 40.7%; ORadjusted 8.85 [4.28–18.29]) compared to IVT. All secondary analyses showed higher recanalization rates in the EVT-group, which however never translated into better functional outcome rates compared to the IVT-group. Conclusion We observed no signal of superiority of EVT over IVT regarding functional outcome in CeAD-patients with AIS and LVO despite higher rates of complete recanalization with EVT. Whether pathophysiological CeAD-characteristics or their younger age might explain this observation deserves further research.