BACKGROUND: Use of alteplase improves outcome in some patients with stroke. Several types of barrier frequently prevent its use. We assessed whether a standardised, barrier-assessment, multicomponent intervention could increase alteplase use in community hospitals in Michigan, USA. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised controlled trial, we selected adult, non-specialty, acute-care community hospitals in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, USA. Eligible hospitals discharged at least 100 patients who had had a stroke per year, had less than 100 000 visits to the emergency department per year, and were not academic comprehensive stroke centres. Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we selected 12 matched pairs of eligible hospitals. Within pairs, the hospitals were allocated to intervention or control groups with restricted randomisation in January, 2007. Between January, 2007, and December, 2007, intervention hospitals implemented a multicomponent intervention that included qualitative and quantitative assessment of barriers to alteplase use and ways to address the findings, and provided additional support. The primary outcome was change in alteplase use in patients with stroke in emergency departments between the pre-intervention period (January, 2005, to December, 2006) and the post-intervention period (January, 2008, to January, 2010). Physicians in participating hospitals and the coordinating centre could not be masked to group assignment, but were masked to progress made in paired control hospitals. External medical reviewers who were masked to group assignment assessed outcomes. We did intention-to-treat (ITT) and target-population (without one pair that was excluded after randomisation) analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00349479. FINDINGS:All 24 hospitals completed the study. Overall, 745 of 40 823 patients with stroke received intravenous alteplase treatment. In the ITT analysis, the proportion of patients with stroke who were admitted and treated with alteplase increased between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods in intervention hospitals (89 [1·25%] of 7119 patients to 235 [2·79%] of 8419) to a greater extent than in control hospitals (99 [1·25%] of 7946 to 194 [2·10%] of 9222), but the difference between groups was not significant (relative risk [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 0·96-1·93; p=0·08). In the target-population analysis, the increase in alteplase use in intervention hospitals (59 [1·00%] of 5882 to 191 [2·62%] of 7288) was significantly greater than in control hospitals (65 [1·09%] of 5957 to 120 [1·72%] of 6989; RR 1·68, 95% CI 1·09-2·57; p=0·02), but was still clinically modest. INTERPRETATION: The intervention did not significantly increase alteplase use in patients with ischaemic stroke. The increase in use of alteplase in the target population was significant, but smaller than the effect to which the study was powered. Additional strategies to increase acute stroke treatment are needed. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Use of alteplase improves outcome in some patients with stroke. Several types of barrier frequently prevent its use. We assessed whether a standardised, barrier-assessment, multicomponent intervention could increase alteplase use in community hospitals in Michigan, USA. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised controlled trial, we selected adult, non-specialty, acute-care community hospitals in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, USA. Eligible hospitals discharged at least 100 patients who had had a stroke per year, had less than 100 000 visits to the emergency department per year, and were not academic comprehensive stroke centres. Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we selected 12 matched pairs of eligible hospitals. Within pairs, the hospitals were allocated to intervention or control groups with restricted randomisation in January, 2007. Between January, 2007, and December, 2007, intervention hospitals implemented a multicomponent intervention that included qualitative and quantitative assessment of barriers to alteplase use and ways to address the findings, and provided additional support. The primary outcome was change in alteplase use in patients with stroke in emergency departments between the pre-intervention period (January, 2005, to December, 2006) and the post-intervention period (January, 2008, to January, 2010). Physicians in participating hospitals and the coordinating centre could not be masked to group assignment, but were masked to progress made in paired control hospitals. External medical reviewers who were masked to group assignment assessed outcomes. We did intention-to-treat (ITT) and target-population (without one pair that was excluded after randomisation) analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00349479. FINDINGS: All 24 hospitals completed the study. Overall, 745 of 40 823 patients with stroke received intravenous alteplase treatment. In the ITT analysis, the proportion of patients with stroke who were admitted and treated with alteplase increased between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods in intervention hospitals (89 [1·25%] of 7119 patients to 235 [2·79%] of 8419) to a greater extent than in control hospitals (99 [1·25%] of 7946 to 194 [2·10%] of 9222), but the difference between groups was not significant (relative risk [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 0·96-1·93; p=0·08). In the target-population analysis, the increase in alteplase use in intervention hospitals (59 [1·00%] of 5882 to 191 [2·62%] of 7288) was significantly greater than in control hospitals (65 [1·09%] of 5957 to 120 [1·72%] of 6989; RR 1·68, 95% CI 1·09-2·57; p=0·02), but was still clinically modest. INTERPRETATION: The intervention did not significantly increase alteplase use in patients with ischaemic stroke. The increase in use of alteplase in the target population was significant, but smaller than the effect to which the study was powered. Additional strategies to increase acute stroke treatment are needed. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Authors: Matthew Rudd; Helen Rodgers; Richard Curless; Mark Sudlow; Stuart Huntley; Badanahatti Madhava; Mark Garside; Christopher I Price Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Lewis B Morgenstern; Lara Staub; Wenyaw Chan; Theodore H Wein; L Kay Bartholomew; Mary King; Robert A Felberg; W Scott Burgin; Janet Groff; Susan L Hickenbottom; Kamaldeen Saldin; Andrew M Demchuk; Anjali Kalra; Anupma Dhingra; James C Grotta Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Dawn Kleindorfer; Brett Kissela; Alex Schneider; Daniel Woo; Jane Khoury; Rosemary Miller; Kathleen Alwell; James Gebel; Jerzy Szaflarski; Arthur Pancioli; Edward Jauch; Charles Moomaw; Rakesh Shukla; Joseph P Broderick Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Paisith Piriyawat; Miriam Smajsová; Melinda A Smith; Sanjay Pallegar; Areej Al-Wabil; Nelda M Garcia; Jan M Risser; Lemuel A Moyé; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Werner Hacke; Geoffrey Donnan; Cesare Fieschi; Markku Kaste; Rüdiger von Kummer; Joseph P Broderick; Thomas Brott; Michael Frankel; James C Grotta; E Clarke Haley; Thomas Kwiatkowski; Steven R Levine; Chris Lewandowski; Mei Lu; Patrick Lyden; John R Marler; Suresh Patel; Barbara C Tilley; Gregory Albers; Erich Bluhmki; Manfred Wilhelm; Scott Hamilton Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Moderator Justin Lundbye; Participants Eric James Zoog; Robert Silbergleit; Josh M Levine Journal: Ther Hypothermia Temp Manag Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 1.286
Authors: Victoria C Weston; William J Meurer; Shirley M Frederiksen; Allison K Fox; Phillip A Scott Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Eric E Adelman; Phillip A Scott; Lesli E Skolarus; Allison K Fox; Shirley M Frederiksen; William J Meurer Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Robert Mikulík; Valeria Caso; Natan M Bornstein; Veronika Svobodová; Francesca Romana Pezzella; Andreea Grecu; Steven Simsic; Zuzana Gdovinova; Anna Członkowska; Tamara S Mishchenko; Yuriy Flomin; Ivan G Milanov; Silva Andonova; Cristina Tiu; Anita Arsovska; Hrvoje Budinčević; Stanislav A Groppa; Daniel Bereczki; Janika Kõrv; Tatiana Kharitonova; Milan R Vosko Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2020-01-20
Authors: Maarten M H Lahr; Durk-Jouke van der Zee; Patrick C A J Vroomen; Gert-Jan Luijckx; Erik Buskens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christine L Paul; Christopher R Levi; Catherine A D'Este; Mark W Parsons; Christopher F Bladin; Richard I Lindley; John R Attia; Frans Henskens; Erin Lalor; Mark Longworth; Sandy Middleton; Annika Ryan; Erin Kerr; Robert W Sanson-Fisher Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Christoph Gumbinger; Björn Reuter; Christian Stock; Tamara Sauer; Horst Wiethölter; Ingo Bruder; Susanne Rode; Rolf Kern; Peter Ringleb; Michael G Hennerici; Werner Hacke Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-05-30