BACKGROUND: The Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study (PASS), a randomized open-label masked endpoint trial, showed that preventive ceftriaxone did not improve functional outcome at 3 months in patients with acute stroke (adjusted common OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82-1.09). Post-hoc analyses showed that among patients who received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), patients who received ceftriaxone had a significantly better outcome as compared with the control group. This study aimed to gain more insight into the characteristics of these patients. METHODS: In PASS, 2,550 patients were randomly assigned to preventive antibiotic treatment with ceftriaxone or standard care. In current post-hoc analysis, 836 patients who received IVT were included. Primary outcome included functional status on the modified Rankin Scale, analyzed with adjusted ordinal regression. Secondary outcomes included infection rate and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) rate. RESULTS: For all patients in PASS, the p value for the interaction between IVT and preventive ceftriaxone regarding functional outcome was 0.03. Of the 836 IVT-treated patients, 437 were administeredceftriaxone and 399 were allocated to the control group. Baseline characteristics were similar. In the IVT subgroup, preventive ceftriaxone was associated with a significant reduction in unfavorable outcome (adjusted common OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.99; p = 0.04). Mortality at 3 months was similar (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48-1.18). Preventive ceftriaxone was associated with a reduction in infections (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.28-0.66), and a trend towards an increased risk for sICH (OR 3.09; 95% CI 0.85-11.31). Timing of ceftriaxone administration did not influence the outcome (aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98-1.03; p = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: According to the post-hoc analysis of PASS, preventive ceftriaxone may improve the functional outcome in IVT-treated patients with acute stroke, despite a trend towards an increased rate of post-IVT-sICH.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study (PASS), a randomized open-label masked endpoint trial, showed that preventive ceftriaxone did not improve functional outcome at 3 months in patients with acute stroke (adjusted common OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82-1.09). Post-hoc analyses showed that among patients who received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), patients who received ceftriaxone had a significantly better outcome as compared with the control group. This study aimed to gain more insight into the characteristics of these patients. METHODS: In PASS, 2,550 patients were randomly assigned to preventive antibiotic treatment with ceftriaxone or standard care. In current post-hoc analysis, 836 patients who received IVT were included. Primary outcome included functional status on the modified Rankin Scale, analyzed with adjusted ordinal regression. Secondary outcomes included infection rate and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) rate. RESULTS: For all patients in PASS, the p value for the interaction between IVT and preventive ceftriaxone regarding functional outcome was 0.03. Of the 836 IVT-treated patients, 437 were administered ceftriaxone and 399 were allocated to the control group. Baseline characteristics were similar. In the IVT subgroup, preventive ceftriaxone was associated with a significant reduction in unfavorable outcome (adjusted common OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.99; p = 0.04). Mortality at 3 months was similar (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48-1.18). Preventive ceftriaxone was associated with a reduction in infections (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.28-0.66), and a trend towards an increased risk for sICH (OR 3.09; 95% CI 0.85-11.31). Timing of ceftriaxone administration did not influence the outcome (aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98-1.03; p = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: According to the post-hoc analysis of PASS, preventive ceftriaxone may improve the functional outcome in IVT-treated patients with acute stroke, despite a trend towards an increased rate of post-IVT-sICH.
Authors: Ángel Chamorro; Andreas Meisel; Anna M Planas; Xabier Urra; Diederik van de Beek; Roland Veltkamp Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Denis Grandgirard; Christian Schürch; Philippe Cottagnoud; Stephen L Leib Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jeffrey D Rothstein; Sarjubhai Patel; Melissa R Regan; Christine Haenggeli; Yanhua H Huang; Dwight E Bergles; Lin Jin; Margaret Dykes Hoberg; Svetlana Vidensky; Dorothy S Chung; Shuy Vang Toan; Lucie I Bruijn; Zao-Zhong Su; Pankaj Gupta; Paul B Fisher Journal: Nature Date: 2005-01-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Willeke F Westendorp; Jan-Dirk Vermeij; Elles Zock; Imke J Hooijenga; Nyika D Kruyt; Hans J L W Bosboom; Vincent I H Kwa; Martijn Weisfelt; Michel J M Remmers; Robert ten Houten; A H C M Tobien Schreuder; Sarah E Vermeer; Ewout J van Dijk; Diederik W J Dippel; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Lodewijk Spanjaard; Marinus Vermeulen; Tom van der Poll; Jan M Prins; Frederique H Vermeij; Yvo B W E M Roos; Ruud P Kleyweg; Henk Kerkhoff; Matthijs C Brouwer; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Diederik van de Beek; Paul J Nederkoorn Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Willeke F Westendorp; Paul J Nederkoorn; Jan-Dirk Vermeij; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Diederik van de Beek Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Fanuel T Hagos; Solomon M Adams; Samuel M Poloyac; Patrick M Kochanek; Christopher M Horvat; Robert S B Clark; Philip E Empey Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Dominik F Draxler; Felix Lee; Heidi Ho; Charithani B Keragala; Robert L Medcalf; Be'eri Niego Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Martin A Schaller-Paule; Christian Foerch; Ferdinand O Bohmann; Sriramya Lapa; Björn Misselwitz; Konstantin Kohlhase; Felix Rosenow; Adam Strzelczyk; Laurent M Willems Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.003