OBJECTIVE: Several studies indicate that only a small proportion of patients with acute ischaemic stroke are treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Indications and contraindications for this treatment are usually based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of randomised clinical trials. The trial context of these criteria hampers implementation in real life settings. We therefore aimed to obtain specialist opinion in a Delphi consensus on these contraindications. METHODS: We used the Delphi approach on an international group of specialists in the field of thrombolysis. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were reworded into 18 quantitatively phrased propositions. Feedback consisted of the median score, interquartile range and the panellist's own score in the previous round. For each item, we defined consensus as the achievement of an interdecile range within two prespecified clinically relevant units. RESULTS: Thirty-one specialists participated in the first round and 30 completed all three rounds. Consensus was reached on 12 of the 18 propositions: previous ischaemic stroke, head trauma and gastrointestinal tract bleeding should not have taken place earlier than 1.5 months, 2 months and 14 days, respectively; the severity of the neurological deficit is defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 2-3 or more, and blood pressure level should not be >185/110 mmHg; platelet count should be >90x10(12)/l, glucose levels 2.7-22 mmol/l, international normalised ratio <1.5 and activated partial thromboplastin time <50 s. No consensus was reached on propositions concerning the stroke onset to treatment time, patient's age, recent medical procedures, spontaneous improvement rate and blood pressure treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We present specialists' opinion on contraindications for intravenous thrombolysis in ischaemic stroke. The results of this study may be relevant for routine clinical practice as they may help to increase the number of treated patients.
OBJECTIVE: Several studies indicate that only a small proportion of patients with acute ischaemic stroke are treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Indications and contraindications for this treatment are usually based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of randomised clinical trials. The trial context of these criteria hampers implementation in real life settings. We therefore aimed to obtain specialist opinion in a Delphi consensus on these contraindications. METHODS: We used the Delphi approach on an international group of specialists in the field of thrombolysis. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were reworded into 18 quantitatively phrased propositions. Feedback consisted of the median score, interquartile range and the panellist's own score in the previous round. For each item, we defined consensus as the achievement of an interdecile range within two prespecified clinically relevant units. RESULTS: Thirty-one specialists participated in the first round and 30 completed all three rounds. Consensus was reached on 12 of the 18 propositions: previous ischaemic stroke, head trauma and gastrointestinal tract bleeding should not have taken place earlier than 1.5 months, 2 months and 14 days, respectively; the severity of the neurological deficit is defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 2-3 or more, and blood pressure level should not be >185/110 mmHg; platelet count should be >90x10(12)/l, glucose levels 2.7-22 mmol/l, international normalised ratio <1.5 and activated partial thromboplastin time <50 s. No consensus was reached on propositions concerning the stroke onset to treatment time, patient's age, recent medical procedures, spontaneous improvement rate and blood pressure treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We present specialists' opinion on contraindications for intravenous thrombolysis in ischaemic stroke. The results of this study may be relevant for routine clinical practice as they may help to increase the number of treated patients.
Authors: Cassandra E I Szoeke; Mark W Parsons; Kenneth S Butcher; Tracey A Baird; Peter J Mitchell; Sonya E Fox; Stephen M Davis Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2003-04-07 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: S C Patel; S R Levine; B C Tilley; J C Grotta; M Lu; M Frankel; E C Haley; T G Brott; J P Broderick; S Horowitz; P D Lyden; C A Lewandowski; J R Marler; K M Welch Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Tanne; Scott E Kasner; Andrew M Demchuk; Nira Koren-Morag; Sandra Hanson; Martin Grond; Steven R Levine Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J Schenkel; C Weimar; T Knoll; R L Haberl; O Busse; G F Hamann; H-C Koennecke; H-C Diener Journal: J Neurol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Zhen Qin; Chi Hang Chon; John Ching Kwong Kwok; Peter Yat Ming Woo; David C C Lam Journal: Cell Mol Bioeng Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Clotilde Balucani; Vanessa Arnedo; Jeremy Weedon; Didier Leys; Jean-Louis Mas; Martin Brown; James C Grotta; Nicole R Gonzales; Werner Hacke; Thomas Brott; Steven R Levine Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2018-01-17
Authors: Darren Flynn; Daniel J Nesbitt; Gary A Ford; Peter McMeekin; Helen Rodgers; Christopher Price; Christian Kray; Richard G Thomson Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Darren Flynn; Gary A Ford; Lynne Stobbart; Helen Rodgers; Madeleine J Murtagh; Richard G Thomson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Aoife De Brún; Darren Flynn; Kerry Joyce; Laura Ternent; Christopher Price; Helen Rodgers; Gary A Ford; Emily Lancsar; Matthew Rudd; Richard G Thomson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Peter McMeekin; Darren Flynn; Gary A Ford; Helen Rodgers; Jo Gray; Richard G Thomson Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 2.796