Michael J Lyerly1, Karen C Albright2, Amelia K Boehme3, Reza Bavarsad Shahripour4, James T Houston4, Pawan V Rawal4, Niren Kapoor4, Muhammad Alvi4, April Sisson4, Anne W Alexandrov5, Andrei V Alexandrov4. 1. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama. Electronic address: mjlyerly@uab.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Health Services and Outcomes Research Center for Outcome and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Center for Excellence in Comparative Effectiveness Research for Eliminating Disparities, Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 3. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 4. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator remains the only approved therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in the United States; however, less than 10% of patients receive treatment. This is partially because of the large number of contraindications, narrow treatment window, and physician reluctance to deviate from these criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who received IV thrombolysis at our stroke center for National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) protocol violations and rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Other outcome variables included systemic hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale at discharge, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients were identified in our stroke registry between 2009 and 2011 and included in the analysis. Protocol violations occurred in 76 patients (36%). The most common violations were thrombolysis beyond 3 hours (26%), aggressive blood pressure management (15%), elevated prothrombin time (PT) or partial thromboplastin time (PTT) (6.6%), minor or resolving deficits (4.2%), unclear time of onset (3.9%), and stroke within 3 months (3%). There were no significant differences in any of the safety outcomes or discharge disposition between patients with or without protocol violations. Controlling for age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale on admission, and glucose on admission, there was no significant increase in sICH (odds ratio: 3.8; 95% confidence interval: .37-38.72) in the patients who had protocol violations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more than one third of patients receiving thrombolysis with protocol violations, overall rates of hemorrhage remained low and did not differ from those who did not have violations. Our data support the need to expand access to thrombolysis in AIS patients. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator remains the only approved therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in the United States; however, less than 10% of patients receive treatment. This is partially because of the large number of contraindications, narrow treatment window, and physician reluctance to deviate from these criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who received IV thrombolysis at our stroke center for National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) protocol violations and rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Other outcome variables included systemic hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale at discharge, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients were identified in our stroke registry between 2009 and 2011 and included in the analysis. Protocol violations occurred in 76 patients (36%). The most common violations were thrombolysis beyond 3 hours (26%), aggressive blood pressure management (15%), elevated prothrombin time (PT) or partial thromboplastin time (PTT) (6.6%), minor or resolving deficits (4.2%), unclear time of onset (3.9%), and stroke within 3 months (3%). There were no significant differences in any of the safety outcomes or discharge disposition between patients with or without protocol violations. Controlling for age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale on admission, and glucose on admission, there was no significant increase in sICH (odds ratio: 3.8; 95% confidence interval: .37-38.72) in the patients who had protocol violations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more than one third of patients receiving thrombolysis with protocol violations, overall rates of hemorrhage remained low and did not differ from those who did not have violations. Our data support the need to expand access to thrombolysis in AISpatients. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Atte Meretoja; Jukka Putaala; Turgut Tatlisumak; Sari Atula; Ville Artto; Sami Curtze; Olli Häppölä; Perttu J Lindsberg; Satu Mustanoja; Katja Piironen; Janne Pitkäniemi; Kirsi Rantanen; Tiina Sairanen; Oili Salonen; Heli Silvennoinen; Lauri Soinne; Daniel Strbian; Marjaana Tiainen; Markku Kaste Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Elsayed Z Soliman; Paul D Sorlie; Nona Sotoodehnia; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michal Karlinski; Adam Kobayashi; Robert Mikulik; Daniel Sanak; Nils Wahlgren; Anna Czlonkowska Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Nneka L Ifejika-Jones; Nusrat Harun; Nareesa A Mohammed-Rajput; Elizabeth A Noser; James C Grotta Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M Guillan; A Alonso-Canovas; J Garcia-Caldentey; V Sanchez-Gonzalez; I Hernandez-Medrano; A Defelipe-Mimbrera; M C Matute; M A Alonso-Arias; M Alonso de Leciñana; J Masjuan Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Nils Wahlgren; Niaz Ahmed; Antoni Dávalos; Werner Hacke; Mónica Millán; Keith Muir; Risto O Roine; Danilo Toni; Kennedy R Lees Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter Sandercock; Joanna M Wardlaw; Richard I Lindley; Martin Dennis; Geoff Cohen; Gordon Murray; Karen Innes; Graham Venables; Anna Czlonkowska; Adam Kobayashi; Stefano Ricci; Veronica Murray; Eivind Berge; Karsten Bruins Slot; Graeme J Hankey; Manuel Correia; Andre Peeters; Karl Matz; Phillippe Lyrer; Gord Gubitz; Stephen J Phillips; Antonio Arauz Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christine Arthur; Lin Song; William Culp; Aliza Brown; Michael Borrelli; Robert Skinner; Howard Hendrickson Journal: AAPS J Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Louise E Craig; Sandy Middleton; Helen Hamilton; Fern Cudlip; Victoria Swatzell; Andrei V Alexandrov; Elizabeth Lightbody; Dame Caroline Watkins; Sheeba Philip; Dominique A Cadilhac; Elizabeth McInnes; Simeon Dale; Anne W Alexandrov Journal: Interv Neurol Date: 2018-09-25