Background—Telephone consent and two physician consents based on medical necessity are alternate strategies for time sensitive medical decisions but are not uniformly accepted for clinical practice or recruitment into clinical trials. We determined the rate of and associated outcomes with alternate consenting strategies in consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients receiving emergent endovascular treatment. Methods—We divided patients into those treated based on in-person consent and those based on alternate strategies. We identified clinical and procedural differences and differences in hospital outcomes: symptomatic ICH and favorable outcome (defined by modified Rankin Scale of 0–2 at discharge) based on consenting methodology. Results—Of a total of 159 patients treated, 119 were treated based on in-person consent (by the patient in 27 and legally authorized representative in 92 procedures). Another 40 patients were treated using alternate strategies (20 telephone consents and 20 two physician consents based on medical necessity). There was no difference in the mean ages and proportion of men among the two groups based on consenting methodology. There was a significantly greater time interval incurred between CT scan and initiation of endovascular procedure in those in whom in-person consent was obtained (117 ± 65 min versus 101 ± 45 min, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in rates of ICH (9% versus 8%, p = 0.9), or favorable outcome at discharge (28% versus 30%, p = 0.8). Conclusions—Consent through alternate strategies does not adversely affect procedural characteristics or outcome of patients and may be more time efficient than in-person consenting process.