F S Vahidy1, M H Rahbar2,3, A P Lal1, J C Grotta1, S I Savitz1. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Texas Medical School, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences (EHGES), School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Biostatistics/Epidemiology/Research Design (BERD) Core, Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS), The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with patients refusing IV t-PA for suspected acute ischemic stroke (AIS), and to compare the outcomes of patients who refused t-PA (RT) with those treated with t-PA. METHODS: Patients who were treated with and refused t-PA at our stroke center were identified retrospectively. Demographics, clinical presentation, and outcome measures were collected and compared. Clinical outcome was defined as excellent (mRS: 0-1), good (mRS: 0-2), and poor (mRS: 3-6). RESULTS: Over 7·5 years, 30 (4·2%) patients refused t-PA. There were no demographic differences between the treated and RT groups. The rate of RT decreased over time (OR 0·63, 95% CI 0·50-0·79). Factors associated with refusal included a later symptom onset to emergency department presentation time (OR 1·02, 95% CI 1·01-1·03), lower NIHSS (OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·03-1·18), a higher proportion of stroke mimics (OR 17·61, 95% CI 6·20-50·02) and shorter hospital stay (OR 1·32, 95% CI 1·09-1·61). Among patients who were subsequently diagnosed with ischemic stroke, only length of stay was significantly shorter for refusal patients (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·06-1·78). After controlling for mild strokes and stroke mimics, clinical outcome was not different between the groups (OR 1·61, 95% CI 0·69-3·73). CONCLUSION: The incidence of patients refusing t-PA has decreased over time, yet it may be a cause for t-PA under-utilization. Patients with milder symptoms were more likely to refuse t-PA. Refusal patients presented later to the hospital and had shorter hospital stays. One out of six refusal patients (16·6%) had a stroke mimic.
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with patients refusing IV t-PA for suspected acute ischemic stroke (AIS), and to compare the outcomes of patients who refused t-PA (RT) with those treated with t-PA. METHODS:Patients who were treated with and refused t-PA at our stroke center were identified retrospectively. Demographics, clinical presentation, and outcome measures were collected and compared. Clinical outcome was defined as excellent (mRS: 0-1), good (mRS: 0-2), and poor (mRS: 3-6). RESULTS: Over 7·5 years, 30 (4·2%) patients refused t-PA. There were no demographic differences between the treated and RT groups. The rate of RT decreased over time (OR 0·63, 95% CI 0·50-0·79). Factors associated with refusal included a later symptom onset to emergency department presentation time (OR 1·02, 95% CI 1·01-1·03), lower NIHSS (OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·03-1·18), a higher proportion of stroke mimics (OR 17·61, 95% CI 6·20-50·02) and shorter hospital stay (OR 1·32, 95% CI 1·09-1·61). Among patients who were subsequently diagnosed with ischemic stroke, only length of stay was significantly shorter for refusal patients (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·06-1·78). After controlling for mild strokes and stroke mimics, clinical outcome was not different between the groups (OR 1·61, 95% CI 0·69-3·73). CONCLUSION: The incidence of patients refusing t-PA has decreased over time, yet it may be a cause for t-PA under-utilization. Patients with milder symptoms were more likely to refuse t-PA. Refusal patients presented later to the hospital and had shorter hospital stays. One out of six refusal patients (16·6%) had a stroke mimic.
Authors: Eric E Smith; Abdul R Abdullah; Iva Petkovska; Eric Rosenthal; Walter J Koroshetz; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-10-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mathew J Reeves; Shalini Arora; Joseph P Broderick; Michael Frankel; John P Heinrich; Susan Hickenbottom; Herbert Karp; Kenneth A LaBresh; Ann Malarcher; G Mensah; Charles J Moomaw; Lee Schwamm; Paul Weiss Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert Adams; Mercedes Carnethon; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Katherine Flegal; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Werner Hacke; Markku Kaste; Erich Bluhmki; Miroslav Brozman; Antoni Dávalos; Donata Guidetti; Vincent Larrue; Kennedy R Lees; Zakaria Medeghri; Thomas Machnig; Dietmar Schneider; Rüdiger von Kummer; Nils Wahlgren; Danilo Toni Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mary G George; Xin Tong; Henraya McGruder; Paula Yoon; Wayne Rosamond; Andrea Winquist; Judith Hinchey; Hilary K Wall; Dilip K Pandey Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2009-11-06
Authors: Scott J Mendelson; Shuaiqi Zhang; Roland Matsouaka; Ying Xian; Shreyansh Shah; Barbara L Lytle; Nicole Solomon; Lee H Schwamm; Eric E Smith; Jeffrey L Saver; Gregg Fonarow; Jane Holl; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 9.910