When to Intervene in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis

 The Debate: Early Intervention vs. Watchful Waiting

The management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) has evolved significantly following the EARLY TAVR trial results. 

At the 2025 EAPCI Summit, experts debated whether to intervene early or maintain close surveillance in these patients.

What EARLY TAVR Showed

The EARLY TAVR trial demonstrated that early TAVR reduced the composite endpoint of death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization by 50% compared to clinical surveillance (26.8% vs. 45.3%, HR 0.50, P0.001). [1] Notably, within 6 months, one in four patients in the surveillance group developed symptoms requiring intervention, and by 2 years, over 70% had undergone valve replacement. [1]

Patients who waited for symptoms experienced declining quality of life before intervention, and many presented with advanced symptoms—including acute valve syndrome with NYHA class III-IV symptoms or syncope—which was associated with worse outcomes, particularly higher stroke rates. [2]

The Case for Early Intervention

Cardiac damage accumulates unpredictably during the asymptomatic phase. The EARLY TAVR trial showed that early intervention preserved left ventricular and left atrial health better than surveillance, with 48.1% maintaining integrated LV health at 2 years versus 35.9% in the surveillance group (P0.001). [1][3]

The AVATAR trial's extended follow-up similarly demonstrated that early surgical AVR reduced the composite endpoint by 58% (HR 0.42, P=0.002), with significant reductions in both mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. [4]

The Case for Watchful Waiting

Personalized risk stratification is essential. The EVOLVED trial, which carefully phenotyped patients with myocardial fibrosis using MRI, showed no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint between early intervention and conservative management, though hospitalization rates were lower with early intervention. [5]

Importantly, mortality rates were similar across treatment strategies in most trials, suggesting that with careful surveillance, watchful waiting remains safe for appropriately selected patients. [1]

What About Biomarkers?

Contrary to expectations, NT-proBNP and troponin levels did not reliably identify which asymptomatic patients benefit most from early intervention. While elevated biomarkers predicted higher event rates overall, the relative benefit of early TAVR was consistent—and sometimes greater—in patients with lower biomarker levels. [6] This suggests limited value for single biomarker measurements in timing decisions.

Updated European Guidelines

The 2025 European guidelines have evolved to recommend considering intervention in asymptomatic patients with:

• High-gradient AS with severe calcification and low surgical risk

• Elevated BNP/NT-proBNP attributable to AS

• LVEF 55% attributable to AS (previously 50%)

• Sustained blood pressure fall >20 mmHg on exercise testing

• Vmax progression ≥0.3 m/s per year

The emphasis has shifted toward personalized medicine rather than rigid cutoffs. [7]

Practical Considerations

Context matters. In healthcare systems with long waiting lists or limited follow-up capacity, earlier intervention may be prudent even for asymptomatic patients. Conversely, in settings with robust surveillance programs, watchful waiting with careful monitoring remains reasonable for selected low-risk patients.

The unpredictability of AS progression—with some patients rapidly developing acute valve syndrome—argues for close surveillance intervals and low thresholds for intervention when any concerning features emerge.

The Bottom Line

The debate reflects a shift from "whether" to "when" to intervene in asymptomatic severe AS. While early intervention reduces hospitalizations and preserves cardiac function, careful surveillance remains viable for appropriately selected patients. The key is individualized decision-making that considers patient preferences, healthcare system capabilities, and evolving risk markers—recognizing that AS progression is unpredictable and cardiac damage, once established, may be irreversible.

ESC vs. High-STEACS: Choosing the Right hs-cTn Strategy for Your Emergency Department

Rapid NSTEMI Diagnosis in the ED: What the Latest Evidence Says About ESC 0/1‑Hour vs. High‑STEACS Pathways

When patients arrive in the Emergency Department with acute chest discomfort—excluding STEMI—the ability to rapidly and safely diagnose NSTEMI is essential. High‑sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs‑cTn) assays have transformed this process, and two accelerated diagnostic pathways dominate current practice: the ESC 0/1‑hour algorithm and the High‑STEACS 0/2‑ or 0/3‑hour pathways. A recent prospective study in JACC provides valuable clarity on how these strategies compare, confirming strong performance for both while highlighting meaningful differences that matter for real‑world implementation.

ESC 0/1‑Hour Algorithm: Higher Sensitivity With Troponin I

For centers using hs‑troponin I assays, the ESC 0/1‑hour algorithm demonstrated superior sensitivity for detecting NSTEMI. This heightened sensitivity reduces the risk of false negatives—an important consideration for institutions prioritizing diagnostic certainty or facing medico‑legal pressures.

Trade‑off: Higher sensitivity comes at the cost of fewer rapid rule‑outs, which can slow ED throughput and increase length of stay.

High‑STEACS Pathways: Greater Efficiency With Troponin I

High‑STEACS, especially when paired with hs‑troponin I, offers a higher proportion of early rule‑outs. This can meaningfully improve patient flow, reduce crowding, and support departments under economic or staffing constraints.

Trade‑off: Sensitivity is slightly lower than the ESC algorithm when using troponin I, though still within a safe and guideline‑supported range.

When Using Troponin T, the Differences Narrow

For institutions using hs‑troponin T assays, the performance gap between ESC and High‑STEACS largely disappears. Both pathways deliver comparable safety and diagnostic accuracy, making the choice more about workflow preference than clinical performance.

Choosing the Right Pathway for Your ED

The optimal strategy depends on local priorities:

• If diagnostic certainty is paramount (especially with troponin I): The ESC 0/1‑hour algorithm may be preferred for its higher sensitivity.

• If ED efficiency and rapid rule‑out capacity are critical: High‑STEACS offers strong performance with better throughput.

Both pathways are validated, guideline‑supported, and safe when implemented correctly. Tailoring the approach to institutional needs is not only reasonable—it’s optimal.

Take‑Home Point

Both the ESC 0/1‑hour and High‑STEACS pathways are excellent tools for NSTEMI evaluation. Their relative advantages depend on the troponin assay used and the operational priorities of the emergency department, balancing sensitivity against efficiency.

Zepbound vs Wegovy: New Trial Data and the Launch of the KwikPen Device

The landscape of obesity treatment continues to evolve rapidly, with two major developments making headlines: the first head-to-head trial comparing Zepbound (tirzepatide) and Wegovy (semaglutide) for weight loss, and Eli Lilly's launch of the innovative Zepbound KwikPen delivery system.

Landmark Trial: SURMOUNT-5 Compares Tirzepatide and Semaglutide

For the first time, researchers have directly compared these two leading weight-loss medications in a randomized controlled trial. The SURMOUNT-5 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2025, enrolled 751 adults with obesity but without type 2 diabetes and randomly assigned them to receive either the maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 mg or 15 mg) or semaglutide (1.7 mg or 2.4 mg) once weekly for 72 weeks.

Superior Weight Loss with Tirzepatide

The results demonstrated that tirzepatide achieved significantly greater weight reduction compared to semaglutide. At 72 weeks, participants treated with tirzepatide experienced an average weight loss of 20.2%, compared to 13.7% with semaglutide—a difference of 6.5 percentage points. In absolute terms, this translated to an average loss of 22.8 kg (50.3 pounds) with tirzepatide versus 15.0 kg (33.1 pounds) with semaglutide.

More Patients Achieving Meaningful Weight Loss Targets

The trial also examined how many participants achieved clinically meaningful weight loss thresholds. Tirzepatide-treated patients were significantly more likely to reach these milestones:

- ≥10% weight loss: 81.6% with tirzepatide vs 60.5% with semaglutide

- ≥15% weight loss: 64.6% with tirzepatide vs 40.1% with semaglutide

- ≥20% weight loss: 48.4% with tirzepatide vs 27.3% with semaglutide

- ≥25% weight loss: 31.6% with tirzepatide vs 16.1% with semaglutide

Participants on tirzepatide were 1.3 to 2.0 times more likely to achieve these weight loss targets compared to those on semaglutide.

Real-World Evidence Confirms Trial Findings

These findings align with real-world data published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2024, which analyzed over 18,000 adults with overweight or obesity who initiated either medication. This large observational study found that at 12 months, tirzepatide was associated with 15.3% weight loss compared to 8.3% with semaglutide—a difference of 6.9 percentage points. Patients on tirzepatide were also significantly more likely to achieve weight loss of ≥5%, ≥10%, and ≥15%.

Similar Safety Profiles

Both medications demonstrated similar safety profiles, with gastrointestinal side effects being the most common adverse events in both groups. These effects were predominantly mild to moderate in severity and occurred primarily during the dose escalation phase. Interestingly, treatment discontinuation due to gastrointestinal events occurred more frequently with semaglutide than with tirzepatide in the SURMOUNT-5 trial.

Introducing the Zepbound KwikPen: A Full Month in One Device

In a significant advancement for patient convenience, Eli Lilly has launched the Zepbound KwikPen, a novel delivery system that provides a full month of treatment in a single device. This innovation addresses one of the practical challenges of chronic weight management therapy: the need for multiple injections and devices.

How the KwikPen Works

The Zepbound KwikPen is designed to deliver four weekly doses from one pen, eliminating the need to manage multiple single-dose pens throughout the month. Patients administer the medication subcutaneously once weekly in the abdomen, thigh, or upper arm, rotating injection sites with each dose. The pen can be used at any time of day, with or without meals.

Dosing and Titration

Zepbound is available in multiple dosage strengths (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7.5 mg, 10 mg, 12.5 mg, and 15 mg), allowing for individualized dose titration. The recommended starting dose is 2.5 mg once weekly, increased after 4 weeks to 5 mg once weekly. The dose can then be increased in 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks based on treatment response and tolerability, with 15 mg being the maximum recommended weekly dose.

Patient-Friendly Features

The KwikPen system offers several advantages for patients managing chronic obesity:

- Reduced device burden: One pen replaces four single-dose pens per month

- Simplified storage: Fewer devices to refrigerate and manage

- Consistent delivery: Reliable subcutaneous injection with each use

- Flexibility: Patients can self-administer after proper training

What This Means for Obesity Treatment

These developments represent significant progress in obesity management. The SURMOUNT-5 trial provides the first direct comparison showing tirzepatide's superior efficacy over semaglutide, while the KwikPen launch improves the practical aspects of long-term treatment adherence.

Both tirzepatide and semaglutide work by mimicking incretin hormones that regulate appetite and food intake. Tirzepatide's dual mechanism—activating both GLP-1 and GIP receptors—appears to confer additional weight loss benefits compared to semaglutide's selective GLP-1 receptor activation.

For healthcare providers and patients navigating obesity treatment options, these findings suggest that tirzepatide may offer enhanced weight reduction outcomes, while the new delivery system may improve treatment convenience and adherence. As with all obesity medications, these agents should be used as part of a comprehensive approach that includes dietary modifications and increased physical activity.

AI in the Cath Lab: Revolution with Caution

A quiet revolution is unfolding in interventional cardiology. At the 2026 EAPCI Summit in Munich, an entire session was devoted to a single subject: artificial intelligence. From predictive modeling to real-time imaging guidance, AI is no longer a futurist’s fantasy — it is increasingly woven into the everyday fabric of cardiovascular care.

A leading interventional cardiologist from the University of Galway opened with a sweeping overview. AI, he explained, “encompasses any technique or system that allows a computer to mimic human behavior: feeling, thinking, acting, and adapting.” Its forms — from machine learning to large language models — are already being deployed to accelerate diagnoses, predict outcomes, and streamline clinical workflow.

Unexpected Discovery

Using machine learning across 75 preprocedural factors in the SYNTAX trial, researchers uncovered a surprise 10-year mortality predictor: gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) — a marker of systemic oxidative stress. Patients with high GGT faced 32.7% mortality vs. 23.5% for those with low GGT.

Beyond mortality prediction, AI is reshaping how cardiologists prepare for procedures. Pre-procedural simulation using coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can model anatomy, blood flow, and stenting outcomes — even rendered in virtual reality for heart team review before a patient ever enters the cath lab. “Planning is everything,” the researcher declared. AI lets clinicians “interrogate just about everything” in advance.

A researcher from Barts Heart Centre, London, focused on intravascular imaging. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) systems are increasingly AI-augmented, capable of characterizing plaque composition and predicting PCI results in near real-time. “AI has revolutionized intravascular imaging processing,” they said.

---

Yet for all the promise, the Barts researcher issued a firm caution. Most AI solutions for intravascular imaging “still make mistakes as they have been trained in small datasets.” Clinical trust, they stressed, requires validation in rigorous outcomes studies — a bar the field has not yet cleared. AI “cannot replace the cardiologist’s own judgment,” and any tool deployed in humans must be thoroughly audited.

A cardiologist from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation surfaced another compelling argument for AI adoption: reducing variability. Across trial databases, identical diagnoses can be managed very differently in the United States versus Japan. AI-driven standardization, over time, could narrow that gap and strengthen the evidence base for all patients.

The Galway researcher offered a candid glimpse into their own daily workflow: they dictate clinical questions, ChatGPT refines the language, and the system organizes tasks for the following day. “It’s something that is a real tsunami in our practice” — efficiency that ultimately frees physicians for more meaningful face-to-face time with patients.

The session closed with a question posed by a co-moderator from the University Hospital of Pisa: what happens when an AI tool earns a Class I guideline recommendation? The answer remains unwritten. What is clear, however, is that AI will reshape cardiovascular practice — carefully, thoughtfully, and with both eyes open to the shadows that accompany its light.

TAVI vs. Surgery in Low-Risk Patients: What 7-Year Data Tells Us

 A new analysis from the Evolut Low Risk Trial is raising important questions about the long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Through 6 years, rates of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke remained statistically similar between TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, the event curves crossed at 5 years, beginning to numerically favor surgery — and by 7 years, a significant difference in aortic valve reintervention rates emerged: 9.8% for TAVI versus 6.0% for surgery.

Investigators also identified a possible culprit: off-guidance postdilation using oversized balloons during implantation, particularly with the 34-mm Evolut R valve. Reintervention rates in those cases reached 19.1%, compared to 4.3% in properly managed cases — though researchers caution this finding remains hypothesis-generating.

Critically, two-thirds of patients who needed reintervention after TAVI ultimately required open-chest surgery — an important consideration when treating younger low-risk patients who may outlive their valve.

Not everyone sees cause for alarm. Data from the NOTION trial showed no increased reintervention signal at 10 years, and some experienced operators report very low reintervention rates in daily practice with the Evolut platform.

The consensus? Shared decision-making and lifetime valve management are more important than ever. 10-year follow-up data will be essential to understand where this story ends.

Expanding the Window: New Trial Finds Clot-Busting Drug Helps Stroke Patients Up to 24 Hours After Onset

 For decades, the clock has been the enemy in stroke care. Every minute without treatment means more brain cells lost — and for patients who arrive at the hospital more than four and a half hours after their symptoms began, treatment options have been frustratingly limited. But a new clinical trial is challenging that boundary in a meaningful way.

What the OPTION Trial Found

Presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2026 in New Orleans, the OPTION trial tested whether intravenous tenecteplase — a clot-dissolving medication — could help patients with acute ischemic strokes caused by non-large-vessel occlusions (non-LVOs) when given between 4.5 and 24 hours after symptom onset.

The results were striking. Patients who received tenecteplase were significantly more likely to achieve an excellent functional outcome at 90 days — defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 (meaning little to no disability) — compared to those who received standard care alone: 43.6% vs. 34.2%.

That's a meaningful difference in real human terms: more patients walking, talking, and living independently three months after their stroke.

Who Was in the Trial?

The trial enrolled 566 patients across 48 centers in China. Participants were adults with disabling strokes (measured by NIHSS scores), no large-vessel occlusion, and evidence of salvageable brain tissue on CT perfusion imaging. Crucially, none of them were candidates for endovascular thrombectomy — the gold-standard mechanical clot removal procedure.

The median time from last known well to treatment was 12 hours — well beyond the traditional thrombolysis window.

What About the Risks?

No treatment comes without tradeoffs. All cases of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain) occurred in the tenecteplase group — 2.8% versus 0% in the control arm. That's a statistically significant and clinically important difference.

However, there were no significant differences in overall mortality (5.0% vs. 3.2%) or serious systemic bleeding between the two groups at 90 days. Leading experts at ISC noted that the degree of functional benefit observed in OPTION appears to justify the relatively low rate of bleeding complications — especially given the lack of other effective options for these patients in the late time window.

The investigators did flag one important caution: two of the bleeding cases occurred in patients who had CT hypodensities larger than the imaging-defined core. Careful review of non-contrast CT scans is advisable before treating patients in this late window.

Why This Matters

More than half of all acute ischemic strokes are caused by non-LVOs. Until now, thrombolysis had only been proven beneficial within the first 4.5 hours for this group — leaving a significant population without effective late-window options.

This trial extends the evidence base considerably. As ISC Vice Chair Dr. Bijoy Menon of the University of Calgary noted, the results are "clearly positive" and represent "one more step in our effort to actually change guidelines and practice."

The Caveats

Experts were quick to acknowledge an important limitation: the OPTION trial enrolled only patients from China. While the biology of stroke is universal, factors including genetics, comorbidities, diet, and healthcare infrastructure can influence both outcomes and risk profiles. Researchers are calling for additional trials in more diverse global populations before these findings can be applied broadly with confidence.

What Comes Next

The OPTION trial findings were published simultaneously in JAMA, lending them significant weight in the medical community. If confirmed in broader populations, this research could reshape how physicians approach stroke care in the late window — offering a lifeline to patients who currently have few options once the traditional treatment clock runs out.

For now, the message is cautiously optimistic: when endovascular treatment isn't available and the right patient is identified, tenecteplase administered up to 24 hours after stroke onset may make a meaningful difference.

---

Based on findings presented at the International Stroke Conference 2026 and published in JAMA, February 2026.

2026 AHA/ASA Guidelines Expand Stroke Treatment Options

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) has released its most comprehensive update to acute ischemic stroke management guidelines since 2018 — and the changes are significant. From expanded eligibility for thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy to the first-ever guidance on pediatric stroke, this overhaul reflects years of accumulated clinical trial data and is already reshaping how stroke care is delivered.

---

Why These Guidelines Matter

Seven years have passed since the last full guideline. In that time, a wave of landmark stroke trials produced results that "changed practice and should change practice more," according to Dr. Shyam Prabhakaran of the University of Chicago Medicine and chair of the writing group. The new guideline, published in Stroke and presented at the International Stroke Conference in New Orleans, aims to close that gap — and the AHA has committed to more frequent, real-time updates going forward.

---

Mobile Stroke Units: A New Class 1 Recommendation

One of the most headline-worthy additions is a Class 1 recommendation in support of mobile stroke units (MSUs) — specialized ambulances equipped with CT scanners and trained teams capable of administering IV thrombolysis in the field. Supported by trials including B_PROUD and BEST-MSU, MSUs have demonstrated measurable improvements in functional outcomes for patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke.

The challenge? Adoption in the United States remains limited due to staffing constraints and a lack of reimbursement pathways. The hope is that this guideline nudges policymakers toward broader financial support.

---

Thrombolysis: Expanded Windows and a New First-Line Option

Tenecteplase Reaches Class 1 Status

Perhaps the most practice-changing update in thrombolysis is the elevation of tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) to a Class 1 recommendation alongside alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) for patients presenting within 4.5 hours of stroke onset. Multiple trials established tenecteplase's non-inferiority, and its practical advantages are compelling: it's administered as a single injection rather than a one-hour infusion, simplifying workflows and facilitating rapid interhospital transfer.

Extended Treatment Windows

The guidelines also push the boundaries of when thrombolysis can be considered:

• 4.5 to 9 hours after onset (or wake-up stroke): Class 2a recommendation when advanced imaging confirms salvageable brain tissue (supported by the EXTEND trial).
• 4.5 to 24 hours in select patients with large-vessel occlusions (LVOs) who cannot undergo thrombectomy: Class 2b recommendation, supported by the HOPE and TRACE-III trials (despite the TIMELESS trial's neutral findings for tenecteplase in this window).

---

Mechanical Thrombectomy: More Patients, More Conditions

Large-Core Strokes and Extended Windows

Thrombectomy eligibility has expanded substantially. A new Class 1 recommendation supports thrombectomy for patients with anterior circulation LVOs presenting 6 to 24 hours after onset who are under 80, have an NIHSS score ≥ 6, and show an ASPECTS score of 3 to 5 without significant mass effect — based on the SELECT2 and ANGEL-ASPECT trials.

Posterior Circulation

Evidence from the ATTENTION and BAOCHE trials now supports thrombectomy for basilar artery occlusion (Class 1): patients with an NIHSS ≥ 10 and mild ischemic damage presenting within 24 hours should be considered for the procedure to improve outcomes and reduce mortality.

Where Evidence Is Still Limited

The guidelines are more cautious about medium- and small-vessel occlusions (distal vessels), where current device technology has not yet demonstrated consistent efficacy. More trials are anticipated as technologies improve.

---

Medical Management Updates

Blood Glucose Control

A Class III recommendation advises against using IV insulin to target blood glucose of 80–130 mg/dL in hospitalized stroke patients with hyperglycemia. The approach hasn't shown functional benefit and raises the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

Blood Pressure Targets After Reperfusion

Two important Class III recommendations address blood pressure management:

1. After IV thrombolysis for mild-to-moderate stroke, do not lower systolic BP below 140 mmHg (vs. the previous 180 mmHg target) — intensive reduction showed no functional benefit.
2. After successful endovascular thrombectomy for anterior circulation LVO, avoid BP goals below 140 mmHg for the first 72 hours post-recanalization, as supported by ENCHANTED2/MT and OPTIMAL-BP — this approach may cause harm.

---

Pediatric Stroke: A First Step

For the first time, the guidelines include dedicated guidance on pediatric stroke — addressing diagnosis, and considering thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy in younger patients. The evidence base here is still developing, but clinicians now have a starting framework. Further trials in this underserved population are a clear priority.

---

What's on the Horizon?

Several knowledge gaps remain ripe for future research:

• Distal vessel thrombectomy as device technology matures
• Advanced imaging to safely guide thrombolysis in extended windows, particularly in low-resource settings
• Neuroprotective agents as adjunctive therapy in the modern reperfusion era — a category that may warrant revisiting given improved patient selection

---

The Bottom Line

The 2026 AHA/ASA guidelines represent a meaningful leap forward in stroke care, driven by a decade of robust clinical trial data. The expansion of treatment eligibility — in terms of both time windows and patient profiles — offers clinicians more tools and more opportunities to improve outcomes. As the AHA transitions to real-time guideline updates, clinicians can expect the evidence to keep moving. The key question now is whether health systems, payers, and policymakers will keep pace.

---

Source: AHA/ASA Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke Guideline, published in Stroke (January 2026). Presented at the International Stroke Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Loberamisal Scores a Rare Win for Stroke Neuroprotection

February 12, 2026  |  International Stroke Conference, New Orleans, LA

A novel drug called loberamisal has delivered a rare breakthrough in stroke neuroprotection, showing significant improvement in patient outcomes in the phase III LAIS trial — the first large neuroprotectant trial to produce positive results.

What the Trial Found

Nearly 1,000 patients with acute ischemic stroke were randomized to receive loberamisal or placebo within 48 hours of symptom onset. At 90 days, 69.7% of patients on loberamisal achieved an excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–1), compared to 56.4% on placebo. The drug also reduced rates of depression and anxiety at 90 days, with no significant safety concerns.

Why It's Different

Unlike previous neuroprotectants that failed in clinical trials, loberamisal works on two targets — inhibiting PSD-95 and acting on the α2-GABA receptor — reducing both brain injury and mood disorders in stroke survivors. It was also given much later (up to 48 hours) than prior agents, reaching patients who had missed the window for reperfusion therapy.

Why It Matters

Most stroke patients never receive acute treatments like thrombolysis or thrombectomy — they arrive too late or are ineligible. Loberamisal's wide treatment window could offer something meaningful to this large, underserved population. Experts are calling for larger global trials to confirm the results across diverse populations.

"Having something to offer all patients that come in within 48 hours would be a game changer." — Stroke neurologist, Yale School of Medicine

Source: International Stroke Conference 2026; LAIS Trial. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.