The New England Journal of Medicine August 16, 2018

MRI-Guided Thrombolysis for Stroke with Unknown Time of Onset

Götz Thomalla, Claus Z. Simonsen, Florent Boutitie, et al.

Bottom Line

The WAKE-UP trial demonstrated that stroke patients with an unknown time of onset can safely and effectively receive intravenous alteplase if their MRI shows a mismatch between diffusion-weighted imaging and FLAIR.

Key Findings

1. Intravenous alteplase significantly increased the rate of a favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin scale score 0 or 1) at 90 days compared to placebo (53.3% vs. 41.8%; adjusted OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.36; P=0.02) [2.1].
2. The median score on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was significantly lower in the alteplase group compared to the placebo group (1 vs. 2; adjusted common OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.23; P=0.003).
3. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2.0% of the alteplase group and 0.4% of the placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant (OR 4.95, 95% CI 0.57 to 42.87; P=0.15).
4. Type 2 parenchymal hemorrhage was significantly more frequent in patients receiving alteplase (4.0%) compared to placebo (0.4%) (P=0.03).
5. There was a numerically higher, though not statistically significant, rate of mortality at 90 days in the alteplase group (4.1% vs. 1.2%; OR 3.38, 95% CI 0.92 to 12.52; P=0.07).

Study Design

Design
RCT
Double-Blind
Sample
503
Patients
Duration
90 days
Median
Setting
Multicenter, Europe
Population Patients aged 18 to 80 years with acute ischemic stroke of unknown onset time (e.g., wake-up strokes) and an MRI showing an acute ischemic lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) but no marked parenchymal hyperintensity on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR).
Intervention Intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg)
Comparator Intravenous placebo
Outcome Favorable clinical outcome, defined as a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days.

Study Limitations

The trial was terminated prematurely due to cessation of funding (enrolling 503 of the planned 800 patients), which severely limited statistical power for evaluating safety endpoints and rare events like mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage [1.3].
Patients planned for mechanical thrombectomy and those with severe stroke syndromes (e.g., NIHSS >25 or >1/3 MCA territory) were excluded, limiting the trial's generalizability for patients with large vessel occlusions.
The protocol required urgent multimodal MRI, which may limit the real-world application of this approach in hospitals or emergency settings where immediate 24/7 MRI is not available.
The study explicitly excluded patients over 80 years of age, reducing the applicability of the findings to older, high-risk demographics.

Clinical Significance

The WAKE-UP trial provided critical evidence that a tissue-based neuroimaging approach can safely identify stroke patients with an unknown onset time who will benefit from thrombolysis. Methodologically, the trial ingeniously utilized the predictable temporal evolution of ischemic changes on MRI—specifically, the fact that ischemic lesions are visible on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) within minutes, but fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) changes take several hours to become conspicuous. This DWI-FLAIR mismatch served as a surrogate marker indicating that the stroke likely occurred within the standard 4.5-hour therapeutic window. Despite the early termination of the trial due to funding cessation, the robust primary efficacy signal validated the imaging biomarker. This paradigm shift relaxed strict time-based windows, prompting major guideline updates to offer reperfusion therapy to a broader population of ischemic stroke patients (such as those with 'wake-up' strokes) previously deemed ineligible.

Historical Context

Prior to the WAKE-UP trial, the administration of intravenous alteplase was strictly limited to a time-based window of 4.5 hours from the last known well time, as established by trials like NINDS and ECASS-III. Because approximately 20-25% of stroke patients (often those who wake up with symptoms) have an unknown onset time, they were systematically excluded from thrombolysis despite potentially salvageable penumbra. WAKE-UP, alongside modern endovascular trials like DAWN and DEFUSE 3, successfully advanced the field from a rigid 'time-is-brain' clock to a personalized 'tissue-is-brain' physiological approach.

Guided Discussion

High-yield insights from every perspective

Med Student
Medical Student

What is the pathophysiological basis for the DWI-FLAIR mismatch seen on MRI in acute ischemic stroke, and why does it serve as a surrogate marker for the time elapsed since stroke onset?

Key Response

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) detects cytotoxic edema, which represents restricted water diffusion due to the failure of the Na+/K+ ATPase pump, occurring within minutes of ischemia. Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) detects vasogenic edema, which typically takes several hours (approximately 4.5 hours) to become visible. Therefore, a lesion that is positive on DWI but negative on FLAIR suggests the stroke occurred very recently, highly likely within the standard 4.5-hour thrombolysis window.

Resident
Resident

A 65-year-old patient wakes up with right-sided weakness at 07:00, having gone to bed at 23:00. Their MRI shows a DWI-FLAIR mismatch. How does the WAKE-UP trial change the management for this patient compared to previous standard non-contrast CT-based protocols?

Key Response

Traditionally, the time of onset was considered the last known well time (23:00), making this patient 8 hours out and ineligible for IV alteplase under standard 4.5-hour clinical windows. The WAKE-UP trial demonstrated that a DWI-FLAIR mismatch can reliably identify a 'tissue clock' rather than a 'time clock,' expanding eligibility for IV tPA in wake-up strokes without large vessel occlusions by proving the true onset was likely within 4.5 hours.

Fellow
Fellow

The WAKE-UP trial relied heavily on MRI. In comprehensive stroke centers where rapid CT perfusion is more accessible, how does the DAWN or DEFUSE-3 trial evidence using CTP for large vessel occlusions compare to the WAKE-UP paradigm, and how do you triage imaging modalities for wake-up strokes?

Key Response

WAKE-UP evaluated IV tPA using a tissue-clock (DWI-FLAIR) primarily in patients without large vessel occlusions (LVOs) or those not eligible for thrombectomy. DAWN and DEFUSE-3 used perfusion imaging (CTP or MRI) to identify salvageable penumbra for mechanical thrombectomy in LVOs up to 24 hours. Fellows must navigate whether to prioritize CTP to rapidly rule in endovascular therapy or MRI to assess tPA eligibility, balancing institutional speed, vessel status, and the complementary but distinct patient populations these trials addressed.

Attending
Attending

Implementing the WAKE-UP protocol requires rapid, round-the-clock access to MRI. What are the operational challenges and cost-benefit considerations of shifting a primary stroke center's first-line imaging from CT to MRI for patients with unknown symptom onset?

Key Response

While WAKE-UP provides clear clinical benefit for a specific subgroup, attendings and stroke directors must weigh the logistical hurdles of 24/7 MRI availability, longer scan times, patient contraindications to MRI (like pacemakers), and the risk of delaying potential transfer for endovascular therapy. It forces a systemic re-evaluation of stroke workflows, demanding meticulous protocolization to avoid delaying care for LVOs while capturing tPA candidates.

Scholarly Review

Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development

PhD
PhD

The WAKE-UP trial was terminated early due to a cessation of funding before reaching its target sample size. How does early termination affect the precision of the estimated treatment effect and the risk of type I and type II errors, and what statistical methods can be used to validate the robustness of such findings?

Key Response

Early termination can lead to overestimated treatment effects (often termed the 'winner's curse') or underpowered secondary and safety outcomes. Methodologists must critically evaluate the conditional power at the time of stoppage. Techniques like Bayesian updating, sensitivity analyses, or meta-analysis with similar trials (e.g., EXTEND) are required to confirm if the observed efficacy (mRS 0-1) is stable and not an artifact of random high fluctuations at the stopping point.

Journal Editor
Journal Editor

A critical peer reviewer might note the high rate of screen failures in the WAKE-UP trial, where over 3000 patients were screened to randomize only 503. How does this high exclusion rate impact the external validity of the trial, and what supplementary data would you demand prior to publication?

Key Response

The massive screen failure rate indicates that the findings apply to a highly selected, narrow cohort of patients (those strictly with mismatch and without massive strokes). A rigorous editor would demand detailed flowcharts of screen failures, baseline characteristics of excluded patients, and sensitivity analyses to ensure the treatment effect is generalizable to real-world wake-up stroke presentations and that the safety profile holds up.

Guideline Committee
Guideline Committee

Based on the WAKE-UP results, how should AHA/ASA stroke guidelines be updated regarding the use of IV alteplase in patients with unknown time of onset, and what Level of Evidence (LOE) and Class of Recommendation (COR) should be assigned?

Key Response

The findings prompted an update to the AHA/ASA guidelines, assigning a Class IIa (Level of Evidence B-R) recommendation. The guideline states that for patients with acute ischemic stroke waking up with symptoms or having unclear onset greater than 4.5 hours from last known well, who have a DWI-FLAIR mismatch on MRI, IV alteplase is reasonable. The committee had to weigh the strong, randomized efficacy data against the strict MRI requirement and early trial stoppage when determining that it is 'reasonable' rather than an absolute standard of care.

Clinical Landscape

Noteworthy Related Trials

1995

NINDS Trial

n = 624 · NEJM

Tested

Intravenous alteplase (tPA) 0.9 mg/kg

Population

Patients with acute ischemic stroke treated within 3 hours of symptom onset

Comparator

Placebo

Endpoint

Favorable outcome at 3 months (minimal or no disability)

Key result: Patients treated with tPA were 30 percent more likely to have minimal or no disability at 3 months, despite an increased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.
2008

ECASS III Trial

n = 821 · NEJM

Tested

Intravenous alteplase (tPA) 0.9 mg/kg

Population

Patients with acute ischemic stroke treated 3 to 4.5 hours after symptom onset

Comparator

Placebo

Endpoint

Favorable outcome at 90 days (mRS score of 0 to 1)

Key result: Alteplase administered between 3 and 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms significantly improved clinical outcomes compared to placebo.
2019

EXTEND Trial

n = 225 · NEJM

Tested

Intravenous alteplase (tPA) 0.9 mg/kg

Population

Patients with acute ischemic stroke and salvageable brain tissue treated 4.5 to 9 hours after onset or with wake-up stroke

Comparator

Placebo

Endpoint

Excellent functional outcome at 90 days (mRS score of 0 to 1)

Key result: Among patients with a perfusion-mismatch on imaging, alteplase therapy within 4.5 to 9 hours or upon waking with stroke resulted in a higher percentage of patients with no or minor neurologic deficits.

Tailored to your role

Want this tailored to you?

Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.

Personalize this analysis