Ilana Spokoyny1, Rema Raman2, Karin Ernstrom3, Alex J Kim4, Brett C Meyer5, Navaz P Karanjia5. 1. Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, California. Electronic address: ispokoyn@ucsd.edu. 2. Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, California; Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, California. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, California. 4. School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the time sensitivity of thrombolytic therapy, the accurate documentation of last known normal (LKN) time is crucial to ensure optimal management of stroke patients. This study investigates whether a difference exists between preliminary LKN times (first responders and emergency department practitioners) and revised LKN times (neurology/stroke practitioners), and what potential impact on emergent management of acute stroke this discrepancy may pose. METHODS: All stroke code patients from UC San Diego hospitals from October 2008 to July 2013 with treatment time data were included and grouped based on the disparity between preliminary LKN time and revised LKN time: preliminary earlier than revised, 2 times equal, and preliminary later than revised. We compared baseline characteristics, stroke code intervals, rates of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) administration, 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, discharge disposition, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. RESULTS: Of 261 patients, 73.6% had disparity between preliminary and revised times: 57.5% had later preliminary LKN than revised, and 16.1% had earlier preliminary LKN than revised. Baseline characteristics, stroke code speed, 90-day mRS score, rates of rt-PA administration, discharge disposition, or rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were not significantly different between the groups. Among rt-PA-treated stroke patients whose preliminary time was earlier than the revised time, had the preliminary LKN been used, 29.4% would have had rt-PA withheld inappropriately. In those stroke patients excluded from rt-PA treatment for being outside the treatment window, whose preliminary time was later than the revised time, had the preliminary time been used, 69.7% would have been inappropriately treated outside the relevant rt-PA window. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients had disparity between preliminary and revised LKN times. Had the preliminary LKN time been used for acute stroke decision-making, 58% of patients would have potentially been treated outside the approved thrombolytic time window, with higher risk of adverse events, and 16% may have been inappropriately excluded from thrombolysis. This study highlights the need for training in the determination and refinement of the actual time of stroke onset, especially at hospitals without stroke expertise.
BACKGROUND: Given the time sensitivity of thrombolytic therapy, the accurate documentation of last known normal (LKN) time is crucial to ensure optimal management of strokepatients. This study investigates whether a difference exists between preliminary LKN times (first responders and emergency department practitioners) and revised LKN times (neurology/stroke practitioners), and what potential impact on emergent management of acute stroke this discrepancy may pose. METHODS: All stroke codepatients from UC San Diego hospitals from October 2008 to July 2013 with treatment time data were included and grouped based on the disparity between preliminary LKN time and revised LKN time: preliminary earlier than revised, 2 times equal, and preliminary later than revised. We compared baseline characteristics, stroke code intervals, rates of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) administration, 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, discharge disposition, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. RESULTS: Of 261 patients, 73.6% had disparity between preliminary and revised times: 57.5% had later preliminary LKN than revised, and 16.1% had earlier preliminary LKN than revised. Baseline characteristics, stroke code speed, 90-day mRS score, rates of rt-PA administration, discharge disposition, or rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were not significantly different between the groups. Among rt-PA-treated strokepatients whose preliminary time was earlier than the revised time, had the preliminary LKN been used, 29.4% would have had rt-PA withheld inappropriately. In those strokepatients excluded from rt-PA treatment for being outside the treatment window, whose preliminary time was later than the revised time, had the preliminary time been used, 69.7% would have been inappropriately treated outside the relevant rt-PA window. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients had disparity between preliminary and revised LKN times. Had the preliminary LKN time been used for acute stroke decision-making, 58% of patients would have potentially been treated outside the approved thrombolytic time window, with higher risk of adverse events, and 16% may have been inappropriately excluded from thrombolysis. This study highlights the need for training in the determination and refinement of the actual time of stroke onset, especially at hospitals without stroke expertise.
Authors: Kennedy R Lees; Erich Bluhmki; Rüdiger von Kummer; Thomas G Brott; Danilo Toni; James C Grotta; Gregory W Albers; Markku Kaste; John R Marler; Scott A Hamilton; Barbara C Tilley; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Werner Hacke; Kathryn Allen; Jochen Mau; Dieter Meier; Gregory del Zoppo; D A De Silva; K S Butcher; M W Parsons; P A Barber; C Levi; C Bladin; G Byrnes Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David Curfman; Lisa Tabor Connor; Hawnwan Philip Moy; Laura Heitsch; Peter Panagos; Jin-Moo Lee; David K Tan; Andria L Ford Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Laetitia Yperzeele; Robbert-Jan Van Hooff; Ann De Smedt; Alexis Valenzuela Espinoza; Rohny Van de Casseye; Ives Hubloue; Jacques De Keyser; Raf Brouns Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 2.762
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: Prasanthi Ramanujam; Kama Z Guluma; Edward M Castillo; Marcus Chacon; Matt B Jensen; Ekta Patel; William Linnick; James V Dunford Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2008 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Edward C Jauch; Jeffrey L Saver; Harold P Adams; Askiel Bruno; J J Buddy Connors; Bart M Demaerschalk; Pooja Khatri; Paul W McMullan; Adnan I Qureshi; Kenneth Rosenfield; Phillip A Scott; Debbie R Summers; David Z Wang; Max Wintermark; Howard Yonas Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Brian H Buck; Sidney Starkman; Marc Eckstein; Chelsea S Kidwell; Jill Haines; Rainy Huang; Daniel Colby; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Gregg C Fonarow; Eric E Smith; Mathew J Reeves; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Wenqin Pan; Daiwai M Olson; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Lee H Schwamm Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Romain Bourcier; Mayank Goyal; David S Liebeskind; Keith W Muir; Hubert Desal; Adnan H Siddiqui; Diederik W J Dippel; Charles B Majoie; Wim H van Zwam; Tudor G Jovin; Elad I Levy; Peter J Mitchell; Olvert A Berkhemer; Stephen M Davis; Imad Derraz; Geoffrey A Donnan; Andrew M Demchuk; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Michael Kelly; Yvo B Roos; Reza Jahan; Aad van der Lugt; Marieke Sprengers; Stephane Velasco; Geert J Lycklama À Nijeholt; Wagih Ben Hassen; Paul Burns; Scott Brown; Emmanuel Chabert; Timo Krings; Hana Choe; Christian Weimar; Bruce C V Campbell; Gary A Ford; Marc Ribo; Phil White; Geoffrey C Cloud; Luis San Roman; Antoni Davalos; Olivier Naggara; Michael D Hill; Serge Bracard Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 18.302