stroke research Canada: 9 Essential Findings Shaping Stroke Science (2026)

What does stroke research Canada actually show? Canada’s Public Health Agency reported that approximately 878,500 adults aged 20 and older had experienced a stroke in 2017–2018, while the Canadian-led ESCAPE trial found 90-day functional independence in 53.0% of participants assigned to endovascular treatment versus 29.3% receiving the control approach. These are different kinds of evidence: one measures population history, and the other tests an intervention under defined conditions. Together, they show why Canada-specific stroke science must examine burden, treatment selection, rehabilitation, and equitable access rather than promising one universal breakthrough. [1, 3]

This World Stroke Day review examines nine findings from stroke research Canada, giving particular attention to trials involving Canadian investigators and the research questions facing Canadian stroke systems. It is an educational review of published evidence, not personal medical guidance. The focus is what studies actually measured, where the findings apply, and which uncertainties remain.

Table of contents

• Why stroke research Canada matters
• Finding 1: Understand Canada’s stroke burden
• Finding 2: Define the condition and the outcome
• Finding 3: ESCAPE changed the evidence discussion
• Finding 4: AcT tested a practical clinical question
• Finding 5: ESCAPE-NA1 shows the value of neutral results
• Finding 6: ESCAPE-MeVO sharpened the treatment boundary
• Finding 7: Rehabilitation is a long-term research field
• Finding 8: Care systems are measurable interventions
• Finding 9: Equity and reproducibility shape the next questions
• How to interpret the evidence table
• What stronger future studies should measure
• Frequently asked questions
• References

Why stroke research Canada matters

The phrase stroke research Canada describes several connected research enterprises, not one single statistic or therapy. Population surveillance estimates how many people have lived with stroke. Randomized trials evaluate whether a specified approach changes a defined outcome. Health-services research asks whether evidence-supported services reach patients consistently across geography and communities. Rehabilitation studies ask what recovery and participation look like months and years later.

For stroke research Canada, those categories are complementary but cannot be substituted for one another. A prevalence estimate does not demonstrate an intervention’s effectiveness. A trial conducted at specialist centres cannot, on its own, establish equal access across all provinces. A favourable imaging endpoint cannot automatically be translated into restored independence. Responsible stroke research Canada reporting makes these boundaries visible while explaining where evidence is unusually strong.

For stroke research Canada, World Stroke Day is a useful moment to examine how scientific methods have evolved. Canadian investigators have helped establish highly influential endovascular evidence, contributed pragmatic comparisons of clot-dissolving agents, and participated in trials that failed to show an anticipated benefit. Negative findings are part of the scientific achievement: they narrow uncertainty and discourage broad assumptions about interventions.

Nine findings at a glance

Research question	Key lesson	Evidence type
How many Canadians are affected?	Define the surveillance period and denominator	National administrative surveillance
What counts as improvement?	Imaging, disability, and participation measure different things	Trial design and outcomes science
Can carefully selected large-vessel patients benefit?	ESCAPE showed a substantial functional-outcome difference	Randomized controlled trial
How do two thrombolytic approaches compare?	AcT supported a prespecified noninferiority conclusion	Canadian pragmatic randomized trial
Does every promising neuroprotective candidate work?	ESCAPE-NA1’s overall primary comparison was neutral	Randomized placebo-controlled trial
Should findings extend to medium-vessel occlusions?	ESCAPE-MeVO did not demonstrate better functional outcomes	International randomized trial
What happens after acute care?	Recovery and community participation require distinct measures	Rehabilitation evidence and guidance
Does access influence implementation?	Timelines, transfers, staffing, and geography matter	Systems-of-care research
What makes claims trustworthy?	Representation, replication, and transparent denominators	Research methodology

Finding 1: Understand Canada’s stroke burden

In stroke research Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Stroke in Canada surveillance report estimated 878,500 adults aged 20 years and older living with a history of stroke in the 2017–2018 reporting period. It reported approximately 438,700 men and 439,800 women and noted that about one in four affected adults were younger than 65. These figures describe people with a stroke history, not the number of new strokes occurring in a particular year. [1]

In additional stroke research Canada reporting, Heart & Stroke’s 2024 background material discussed research-derived estimates of approximately 108,707 strokes annually. That is a foundation-reported estimate of annual events, not the same metric as PHAC’s count of adults living with a prior stroke. Different populations, years, source systems, and statistical models can generate figures that appear inconsistent until their denominators are specified. [2]

For stroke research Canada, this distinction is fundamental. Prevalence summarizes the population living with a condition or its history. Incidence concerns new events over a period. Event counts can differ from numbers of distinct people because recurrent events are possible. A projected count is not an observed census. Each statistic has a legitimate role, but only when attached to a clear definition.

Why dated estimates are still useful

Historical stroke research Canada surveillance remains valuable for comparing trends, evaluating data gaps, and planning research infrastructure. It cannot be casually relabelled as a live 2026 total. A transparent article gives the period alongside every count and identifies whether the source is a federal surveillance agency, a foundation estimate, or a peer-reviewed clinical dataset.

One persistent challenge for stroke research Canada is linking event recording to later outcomes without losing people who move between jurisdictions, facilities, or types of care. A complete picture would connect acute episodes, repeat events, disability, community participation, and longer-term follow-up. Building those connections requires robust privacy safeguards and harmonized definitions.

Finding 2: Define the condition and the outcome

In stroke research Canada, stroke is not one homogeneous biological event. Ischemic stroke involves interrupted cerebral blood flow, often involving an obstructed vessel. Hemorrhagic stroke involves bleeding into or around the brain. Although both fall under the broad stroke category, their mechanisms, eligibility criteria, study populations, and outcome measures can differ substantially.

This matters whenever a headline says that stroke research Canada has identified an effective approach. The immediate question is: effective for which population? Findings from an ischemic large-vessel-occlusion trial cannot be generalized automatically to hemorrhagic stroke. Even within ischemic stroke, investigators may study vessel size, tissue imaging, severity, symptom timing, or other entry criteria.

What the modified Rankin Scale measures

Many stroke research Canada summaries discuss the modified Rankin Scale, often abbreviated mRS, to describe disability and functional status. Scores range from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death). Researchers frequently report the proportion reaching mRS 0–2, generally interpreted as functional independence, or mRS 0–1, a more restrictive excellent-outcome threshold.

In stroke research Canada, these are not interchangeable endpoints. A study reporting mRS 0–2 may have different apparent success rates from one reporting mRS 0–1 in a similar population. Analysts also examine the distribution of all mRS categories, because an intervention might shift patients toward less disability without moving everyone across a single chosen threshold.

Stroke research Canada therefore has an interpretation problem as well as a discovery problem. Studies may measure blood-vessel reperfusion, tissue injury on imaging, mortality, disability, quality of life, mood, communication, return to roles, or caregiver experiences. Each is informative, but a surrogate marker is not equivalent to a person-centred functional outcome.

Absolute effects versus relative effects

For stroke research Canada interpretation, suppose a trial reports that independence occurred in 53% of one group and 29.3% of another. The absolute difference is 23.7 percentage points, while a relative comparison answers a different mathematical question. Neither statistic should be separated from eligibility criteria, follow-up duration, confidence intervals, and possible adverse effects.

The strongest stroke research Canada articles report both the size of a finding and its study context. That approach allows readers to appreciate genuine scientific progress without mistaking population averages for guaranteed individual outcomes.

Finding 3: ESCAPE changed the evidence discussion

The stroke research Canada landmark Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Anterior Circulation Proximal Occlusion with Emphasis on Minimizing CT to Recanalization Times (ESCAPE) trial was published by Goyal, Demchuk, Menon, and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015. The randomized study involved 316 participants at 22 centres and examined endovascular therapy in a carefully selected acute ischemic stroke population. [3]

In this stroke research Canada study, at 90 days, the proportion with mRS 0–2 was 53.0% in the intervention group and 29.3% in the control group. The study also evaluated mortality and disability-shift outcomes; its principal message was grounded in a prespecified clinical study design rather than an isolated imaging observation. [3]

For stroke research Canada, ESCAPE is a landmark because Canadian academic networks helped generate evidence that influenced the worldwide understanding of selected large-vessel ischemic strokes. Its impact did not rest on a vague assertion that “technology works.” It rested on identifying a population, comparing assigned strategies, documenting endpoints, and publishing the resulting differences.

What ESCAPE does not prove

In stroke research Canada, ESCAPE does not show that every form of stroke or every blocked blood vessel benefits from the same intervention. It does not establish outcomes for individuals outside the trial’s selection parameters. It also cannot answer every question about rural transfer pathways, staffing, or long-term life participation, because a treatment trial has defined scope and follow-up.

The important lesson from ESCAPE for stroke research Canada is disciplined specificity. An impressive trial result becomes more useful when investigators explain why the criteria matter and when health systems determine how evidence may be implemented in real-world settings.

Finding 4: AcT tested a practical clinical question

A major stroke research Canada contribution, the Canadian Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase (AcT) trial, reported by Menon, Buck, Singh, and colleagues in The Lancet in 2022, compared two thrombolytic strategies in acute ischemic stroke. It was a pragmatic, multicentre randomized study designed around a noninferiority question, not an automatic assumption that the newer option must be superior. [4]

The stroke research Canada investigators randomized 1,600 participants: 816 assigned to tenecteplase and 784 to alteplase. The principal excellent functional outcome, mRS 0–1 at approximately 90–120 days, occurred in 296 of 802 assessed participants (36.9%) in one group and 266 of 765 (34.8%) in the other. The reported unadjusted risk difference was 2.1 percentage points, with a 95% confidence interval from −2.6 to 6.9 percentage points. [4]

The trial met its prespecified noninferiority criterion. That is technically distinct from proving that one agent is superior. Noninferiority studies ask whether the data exclude a specified degree of worse performance within a pre-established margin. A statistically sound interpretation depends on that margin, the confidence interval, adherence, follow-up, and the analysis population.

Why pragmatic design matters

In stroke research Canada, pragmatic trials attempt to answer questions closer to routine service conditions than narrowly controlled efficacy experiments. That can improve relevance to Canadian care systems, though pragmatic designs still have eligibility rules, missing-data considerations, and limitations. No individual clinical decision follows directly from this educational summary.

Stroke research Canada gains depth from AcT because it demonstrates that progress can mean evaluating established approaches more carefully. Scientific advancement is not limited to discovering a wholly new molecule or device; it also includes testing comparative effectiveness with transparent endpoints and predeclared statistical rules.

Finding 5: ESCAPE-NA1 shows the value of neutral results

In stroke research Canada, ESCAPE-NA1, published by Hill, Goyal, Menon, and colleagues in The Lancet in 2020, investigated the proposed neuroprotective agent nerinetide in an endovascular-treatment setting. The trial randomized 1,105 participants, with 549 in the nerinetide group and 556 in the placebo group. This was an experimental clinical investigation, not evidence for unsupervised use. [5]

In this stroke research Canada study, functional independence at 90 days, using mRS 0–2, occurred in 337 of 549 participants (61.4%) in the investigational group and 329 of 556 (59.2%) in the placebo group. The reported adjusted risk ratio was 1.04 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.96–1.14 and p = 0.35. The overall primary analysis did not establish a significant benefit. [5]

The researchers also examined potential treatment interactions in exploratory or prespecified subgroup work. However, subgroup hypotheses do not convert a neutral overall primary comparison into a general efficacy claim. Confirmation needs an appropriately designed independent test rather than selective emphasis on a favourable subset.

Why a null result advances science

In stroke research Canada, a neutral trial can reveal that a plausible molecular mechanism did not translate into the intended clinical outcome under tested conditions. It can expose questions about drug interactions, patient selection, outcome sensitivity, and biological timing. These are research directions, not promises of future effectiveness.

In responsible stroke research Canada coverage, ESCAPE-NA1 belongs alongside positive trials. Omitting a well-conducted negative result creates an exaggerated narrative in which every candidate treatment seems to succeed. Including it makes the field’s actual standards of proof more visible and helps prevent laboratory hypotheses from being presented as established human benefit.

Finding 6: ESCAPE-MeVO sharpened the treatment boundary

An important stroke research Canada trial, ESCAPE-MeVO randomized trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2025, addressed whether endovascular treatment improved outcomes in people with medium-vessel occlusion strokes. Researchers randomized 530 participants, with 255 assigned to an endovascular-treatment approach and 275 to usual care. [6]

The stroke research Canada trial did not demonstrate a better functional outcome at 90 days with the endovascular strategy in its studied population. This result deserves equal prominence with the earlier ESCAPE success because it evaluates a meaningfully different clinical scenario. A benefit demonstrated for selected large-vessel disease cannot simply be projected onto smaller or more distal vessels.

Why boundaries matter as much as breakthroughs

Stroke research Canada must distinguish a validated application from an attractive extension. Vessel anatomy, affected tissue, procedural risks, natural history, and imaging selection can all alter the balance measured in a randomized comparison. Results from one setting are informative hypotheses in another, not a substitute for dedicated testing.

The sequence from ESCAPE to ESCAPE-MeVO illustrates scientific self-correction. A research programme can establish one important benefit and later show that a related intervention does not improve the chosen outcome in another group. That is not inconsistency; it is increasingly precise knowledge about where an intervention has been demonstrated to help.

Finding 7: Rehabilitation is a long-term research field

Within stroke research Canada, acute intervention trials answer important questions, but survival and short-term independence do not tell the entire story. Stroke survivors can experience changes in mobility, communication, fatigue, cognition, work roles, relationships, and community participation. Such outcomes do not always move together, making rehabilitation a distinct area of investigation.

For stroke research Canada, Canadian Stroke Best Practices includes a 2025 Rehabilitation, Recovery and Community Participation evidence update. Its scope reflects the need to evaluate recovery beyond discharge and across different care settings. Recommendations synthesize bodies of evidence; they are not themselves proof that every implementation model works equally well in every region. [7]

For stroke research Canada, rehabilitation research can compare function at multiple time points, measure participation directly, and track quality-of-life constructs using validated instruments. The durability of improvement matters, as does the experience of people with communication limitations or more severe disability who may be underrepresented in conventional research follow-up.

A measurement example

In stroke research Canada, two individuals with a similar mRS category might differ substantially in aphasia, balance confidence, cognitive workload, or participation in meaningful routines. A single disability score is valuable for comparison across trials, but it cannot capture every dimension of a life after stroke. Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods may help explain why group-level metrics and lived experiences sometimes diverge.

Future stroke research Canada cohorts can add caregiver burden, accessible communication, rural rehabilitation availability, and patient-defined goals as carefully specified endpoints. None of these factors should be reduced to a universal recovery timeline. The purpose of research is to test which supports are associated with reliable improvements, for whom, and under what circumstances.

Rehabilitation evidence and mechanistic studies

Stroke research Canada includes laboratory work on neural plasticity, network reorganization, inflammation, and tissue repair may suggest why recovery changes over time. Those findings are important for forming hypotheses, but a cell experiment or animal model cannot establish human functional benefit. Researchers need valid measures, appropriate controls, and eventually replicated clinical outcomes to bridge the translational gap.

Stroke research Canada benefits when molecular studies and rehabilitation trials communicate without overstating either side. Biological plausibility can guide a study’s question; patient-centred outcomes determine whether an intervention’s claimed real-world benefit was actually observed.

Finding 8: Care systems are measurable interventions

Canada’s geography creates stroke research Canada questions that a single hospital-based randomized trial cannot settle. People may enter emergency systems far from comprehensive centres, move between facilities, or encounter different imaging and specialist resources. Such variation motivates studies of regional stroke networks, referral pathways, data quality, and continuity of follow-up.

For stroke research Canada, Canadian Stroke Best Practices publishes guidance on acute stroke management, including a 2025 interim thrombectomy update, and maintains a separate stroke-systems framework. These resources organize available evidence and implementation priorities. They should be distinguished from trials: guidelines interpret and synthesize studies, while local outcome audits reveal how systems actually operate. [8, 9]

Research questions for integrated systems

• How consistently are stroke episodes identified and classified across administrative data systems?
• How long do different stages of assessment and interfacility movement take in a given network?
• Are functional-outcome measurements complete across hospitals and communities?
• Do rural and remote populations appear adequately in evaluation datasets?
• Which changes in service organization produce reproducible improvements rather than one-time fluctuations?

The appropriate measures depend on the study design. Investigators may use interrupted time series, registries, matched observational comparisons, cluster trials, or mixed-method evaluations. Each has limitations. A correlation between a better-resourced centre and better outcomes does not by itself establish that one particular service caused the difference.

For stroke research Canada, implementation evidence is an essential partner to randomized efficacy evidence. A highly effective approach in a trial is relevant to national outcomes only to the extent that systems can deliver care for eligible people and assess results honestly. That challenge involves infrastructure and evaluation rather than consumer-facing treatment instructions.

Finding 9: Equity and reproducibility shape the next questions

In stroke research Canada, national averages can hide differences between places and populations. Research quality depends in part on who was included, who could consent or participate, who completed follow-up, and who was missing from records. Age, sex, geography, socioeconomic context, language, Indigenous identity, and disability can intersect with access and study representation.

Stroke research Canada should distinguish observed differences from explanations for those differences. For example, a registry may identify variation in access between regions without demonstrating which factors caused that variation. Understanding the mechanisms may require carefully designed additional studies, community governance, and meaningful input from affected groups.

Indigenous data and community partnership

When stroke research Canada involves First Nations, Inuit, or Métis populations, ethical design cannot be reduced to adding a demographic checkbox. Governance, consent, culturally appropriate methods, and community-defined priorities are substantive elements of study quality. Researchers must respect applicable distinctions and data-governance principles instead of assuming that one pan-Indigenous category captures lived realities.

More representative stroke research Canada evidence can improve the external validity of findings. If a study only measures participants who can easily return for in-person visits, people with transportation barriers or major communication impairments may be systematically missed. That pattern can make recovery appear better than it is in the full eligible population.

Reproducibility is a practical discipline

Trustworthy stroke research Canada studies prospectively define primary outcomes, document missing data, explain statistical methods, and distinguish hypothesis-generating analyses from confirmatory tests. Registration, protocols, transparent reporting, and independent replication make it easier to identify which findings withstand scrutiny. They also help detect selective outcome reporting and inappropriate generalization.

For stroke research Canada, a strong scientific culture values both striking positive trials and careful null trials. It reports adverse events, uncertainty intervals, competing explanations, and limitations. It also keeps marketing claims separate from peer-reviewed evidence. No company- or vendor-reported performance data are used as clinical evidence in this review.

How to interpret the evidence table

The table below compares actual published studies, not products. Its denominators and endpoints are deliberately visible. A result should be read together with its eligibility criteria and comparator; it should never be interpreted as a guarantee for a person outside a clinical study.

Published study	Design and population	Verified numerical result	Appropriate interpretation
ESCAPE (Goyal et al., 2015) [3]	Randomized trial; 316 participants with selected acute ischemic large-vessel stroke	mRS 0–2 at 90 days: 53.0% versus 29.3%	Demonstrated benefit in the studied population, not all stroke types
AcT (Menon et al., 2022) [4]	Canadian pragmatic randomized noninferiority trial; 1,600 randomized	mRS 0–1: 36.9% versus 34.8% among those assessed	Met prespecified noninferiority criterion; not proof of superiority
ESCAPE-NA1 (Hill et al., 2020) [5]	Randomized placebo-controlled trial; 1,105 participants	mRS 0–2: 61.4% versus 59.2%; p = 0.35	Overall primary benefit not established
ESCAPE-MeVO (2025) [6]	Randomized medium-vessel-occlusion trial; 530 participants	255 versus 275 randomized	No improved primary functional outcome demonstrated

The examples reveal why stroke research Canada cannot be accurately summarized by counting positive headlines. ESCAPE and ESCAPE-MeVO assessed different anatomies and eligibility questions. AcT tested noninferiority using an excellent-outcome endpoint. ESCAPE-NA1 tested a neuroprotection hypothesis against placebo. They address different scientific propositions.

What trial numbers cannot tell us alone

Point estimates are samples subject to uncertainty, selection, and protocol boundaries. The size of a sample does not automatically guarantee representativeness. A confidence interval expresses uncertainty under the stated statistical model; it is not a prediction range for every future patient. A p-value is not a measure of clinical importance.

Stroke research Canada reporting also has to avoid conflating randomized participants with participants included in a particular outcome analysis. AcT, for example, randomized 1,600 people but reported its quoted primary proportions with assessed denominators of 802 and 765. Providing both numbers makes attrition and endpoint interpretation easier to evaluate. [4]

What stronger future studies should measure

The next advances may come from improved selection methods, more complete outcome tracking, refined rehabilitation evaluations, or better-connected care systems. None is predetermined to succeed. Each should begin with a clear research question, a meaningful comparator, and outcomes important to the population being studied.

1. Better transitions between acute and long-term data

There is scientific value in measuring more than a single 90-day visit. Longer follow-up can clarify whether early functional gains persist, whether new challenges become apparent, and how social participation changes. It can also expose biases from missing data and unequal access to follow-up services.

Stroke research Canada needs data systems capable of connecting these stages ethically. Registries, rehabilitation datasets, patient-reported measures, and administrative records each capture different dimensions. Their value increases when definitions are consistent and researchers document linkage limitations rather than treating gaps as if they were absence of disability.

2. Representative enrolment and transparent subgroup work

Trials commonly need selective criteria to answer a precise efficacy question. Subsequent research should test where those findings generalize. Regional diversity, older adults, people with several chronic conditions, and participants with severe communication impairments may require deliberate recruitment and accessible follow-up design.

However, dividing one dataset into many subgroups can generate unstable apparent differences. Stroke research Canada investigators should declare which subgroup tests were planned, publish interaction estimates with uncertainty, and seek replication before suggesting one group benefits differently from another.

3. More complete patient-centred outcome measures

Disability scales remain essential for comparability, but communication, cognition, fatigue, independence in valued activities, and community participation deserve carefully validated measurements. Outcomes should be selected with patients, families, clinicians, and methodologists and reported using clear definitions that permit future comparison.

Stroke research Canada can become more useful when clinical endpoints and lived experience are measured together. That does not mean substituting anecdote for evidence. It means recognizing that a standardized trial score and a person’s reported participation answer different questions, both of which can be rigorously investigated.

4. Independent confirmation and public evidence literacy

Promising hypotheses deserve well-designed tests before broad claims. Investigators should make negative results as visible as positive ones and identify protocol departures. Reviewers should check whether a publication is peer reviewed, which outcomes were registered, whether figures are absolute or relative, and what population was actually studied.

For stroke research Canada, this careful approach is not pessimistic. It is the pathway by which durable findings emerge: a question becomes a protocol; a trial produces bounded results; other teams test the boundaries; and guidance evolves as better evidence accumulates.

Frequently asked questions

1. What is the most important Canadian-led stroke trial?

There is no objective single ranking, but ESCAPE is a major landmark in stroke research Canada. Its 2015 randomized results showed 53.0% versus 29.3% functional independence at 90 days in a selected acute ischemic stroke population. Its significance lies in the rigorous comparison and carefully defined eligibility, not a claim that its result applies to every stroke. [3]

2. How many Canadians experience stroke?

The answer depends on whether the question concerns historical prevalence or annual events. PHAC estimated 878,500 adults aged 20 and older living with a stroke history in 2017–2018. Separately, a 2024 Heart & Stroke backgrounder reported an estimate of approximately 108,707 stroke events each year. These figures refer to different metrics and should not be treated as interchangeable current counts. [1, 2]

3. Did the Canadian AcT trial prove that one thrombolytic is superior?

No. The AcT trial was designed to test noninferiority. It randomized 1,600 participants and found its prespecified noninferiority criterion was met. A noninferiority result does not automatically show superiority, and its findings belong within the eligibility and study design specified by the investigators. [4]

4. Why are negative stroke trials useful?

A negative or neutral primary outcome narrows uncertainty. ESCAPE-NA1 did not establish an overall primary functional benefit for its investigational neuroprotective agent, while ESCAPE-MeVO did not show improved functional outcomes with the studied intervention for medium-vessel occlusions. Together they help define where proposed mechanisms or extensions of earlier findings need further testing. [5, 6]

5. What areas need further stroke research in Canada?

Important questions include representative trial enrolment, equitable regional access, long-term rehabilitation outcomes, reproducibility, and better linkage between acute and community-based data. Stroke research Canada will be more informative when studies report functional and patient-centred outcomes alongside clear eligibility criteria, complete denominators, and meaningful limitations. [7–9]

References

1. Public Health Agency of Canada. Stroke in Canada. Surveillance report using the 2017–2018 period. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/stroke-in-canada.html
2. Heart & Stroke. Stroke in Canada: Backgrounder (June 2024). Foundation-reported, research-derived national estimates. https://www.heartandstroke.ca/-/media/pdf-files/what-we-do/news/hsf_fast_backgrounder_june_2024.pdf
3. Goyal M, Demchuk AM, Menon BK, et al. Randomized assessment of rapid endovascular treatment of ischemic stroke. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372:1019–1030. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414905. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25671798/
4. Menon BK, Buck BH, Singh N, et al. Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in Canada (AcT): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, registry-linked, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35779553/
5. Hill MD, Goyal M, Menon BK, et al. Efficacy and safety of nerinetide for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke (ESCAPE-NA1): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32087818/
6. Endovascular Treatment of Stroke Due to Medium-Vessel Occlusion (ESCAPE-MeVO). New England Journal of Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2411668. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39908448/
7. Canadian Stroke Best Practices. Rehabilitation, Recovery and Community Participation Following Stroke, seventh edition update (2025). https://www.strokebestpractices.ca/
8. Canadian Stroke Best Practices. Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment, including 2025 interim thrombectomy update. https://www.strokebestpractices.ca/recommendations/acute-stroke-management/acute-ischemic-stroke-treatment
9. Canadian Stroke Best Practices. Stroke Systems of Care recommendations. https://www.strokebestpractices.ca/

For laboratory research use only. Not for human consumption.