Dataset Information

Safety of intravenous thrombolytic use in four emergency departments without acute stroke teams.

ABSTRACT: The objective was to evaluate safety of intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) delivered without dedicated thrombolytic stroke teams.This was a retrospective, observational study of patients treated between 1996 and 2005 at four southeastern Michigan hospital emergency departments (EDs) with a prospectively defined comparison to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) tPA stroke study cohort. Main outcome measures were mortality, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), systemic hemorrhage, neurologic recovery, and guideline violations.A total of 273 consecutive stroke patients were treated by 95 emergency physicians (EPs) using guidelines and local neurology resources. One-year mortality was 27.8%. Unadjusted Cox model relative risk (RR) of mortality compared to the NINDS tPA treatment and placebo groups was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.64) and 1.04 (95% CI = 0.76 to 1.41), respectively. The rate of significant ICH by computed tomography (CT) criteria was 6.6% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.56 to 1.90 compared to the NINDS tPA treatment group). The proportions of symptomatic ICH by two other prespecified sets of clinical criteria were 4.8 and 7.0%. The rate of any ICH within 36 hours of treatment was 9.9% (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.51 compared to the NINDS tPA group). The occurrence of major systemic hemorrhage (requiring transfusion) was 1.1%. Functional recovery by the modified Rankin Scale score (mRS = 0 to 2) at discharge occurred in 38% of patients with a premorbid disability mRS < 2. Guideline deviations occurred in the ED in 26% of patients and in 25% of patients following admission.In these EDs there was no evidence of increased risk with respect to mortality, ICH, systemic hemorrhage, or worsened functional outcome when tPA was administered without dedicated thrombolytic stroke teams. Additional effort is needed to improve guideline compliance.

SUBMITTER: Scott PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3058313 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety of intravenous thrombolytic use in four emergency departments without acute stroke teams.

Scott Phillip A PA Frederiksen Shirley M SM Kalbfleisch John D JD Xu Zhenzhen Z Meurer William J WJ Caveney Angela F AF Sandretto Annette A Holden Ann B AB Haan Mary N MN Hoeffner Ellen G EG Ansari Sameer A SA Lambert David P DP Jaggi Michael M Barsan William G WG Silbergleit Robert R

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20101001 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective was to evaluate safety of intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) delivered without dedicated thrombolytic stroke teams.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective, observational study of patients treated between 1996 and 2005 at four southeastern Michigan hospital emergency departments (EDs) with a prospectively defined comparison to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) tPA stroke study cohort. Main outcome measures were m ...[more]

PMID: 21040107

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesWake-up stroke is an important clinical problem that may account for a quarter of all ischemic strokes. This study aimed to establish the safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolytic treatment of wake-up strokes by comparing it to the standard thrombolysis treatment in strokes with clear onsets and wake-up strokes that did not receive reperfusion therapy.MethodsThis retrospective study enrolled 95 patients with ischemic strokes who underwent thrombolytic treatment with alteplase, including nine patients with wake-up strokes. The safety profile (mortality and intracranial bleeding) and efficacy (clinical and functional outcomes on admission, discharge, and 90 days after stroke onset) were evaluated.ResultsWhen assessed using the modified Rankin scale (mRs), the patients with wake-up strokes had significantly more favorable functional outcomes on discharge when compared to those who received standard thrombolysis (p = .0289). No significant differences were noted when the favorable outcome rate (mRs score = 0-2) at three months post-thrombolysis (Odds ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41-10.6; p = .3807) and safety outcomes (death during hospitalization: OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.03-9.11; p = .6295 and intracranial bleeding 24 hr after treatment: OR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.02-7.58; p = .5707) were compared between the two groups. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenchel shift analysis showed a significantly more favorable distribution of the mRs scores at three months after the stroke onset in the patients with wake-up strokes who were treated with alteplase compared to those who did not receive thrombolysis (OR = 1.42; 95% CI = 1.01-1.82; p = .0426).ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that in patients who awaken with stroke symptoms, intravenous thrombolytic treatment is a safe procedure that may lead to favorable outcomes. Further studies should be performed to increase the size of the group of patients with wake-up strokes who can be treated with reperfusion therapy.

Project description:BackgroundMost ischaemic strokes are caused by blockage of a cerebral artery by a thrombus. Intravenous administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator given within 4.5 hours is now standard treatment for this condition. Percutaneous vascular interventions use an intra-arterial, mechanical approach for thrombus disruption or removal (thrombectomy). Recent randomised trials indicate that percutaneous vascular interventions are superior to usual care (usual care usually included intravenous thrombolysis). However, intravenous thrombolysis was usually given in both arms of the trial and there was a lack of direct comparison of percutaneous vascular interventions with intravenous thrombolysis.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous vascular interventions compared with intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last search: August 2018). In addition, in September 2017, we searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index; and Stroke Trials Registry, and US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared a percutaneous vascular intervention with intravenous thrombolytic treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We obtained both published and unpublished data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included four trials with 450 participants. Data on functional outcome and death at end of follow-up were available for 443 participants from three trials. Compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy, percutaneous vascular intervention did not improve the proportion of participants with good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2, risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.25, P = 0.92). The quality of evidence was low (outcome assessment was blinded, but not the treating physician or participants). At the end of follow-up, there was a non-significant increase in the proportion of participants who died in the percutaneous vascular intervention group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.14, P = 0.21). The quality of evidence was low (wide confidence interval). There was no difference in the proportion of participants with symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.95, P = 0.97). The quality of evidence was low (wide confidence interval). Data on vascular status (recanalisation rate) were only available for seven participants from one trial; we considered this inadequate for statistical analyses.Authors' conclusionsThe present review directly compared intravenous thrombolytic treatment with percutaneous vascular interventions for ischaemic stroke. We found no evidence from RCTs that percutaneous vascular interventions are superior to intravenous thrombolytic treatment with respect to functional outcome. Quality of evidence was low (outcome assessment was blinded, but not the treating physician or participants). New trials with adequate sample sizes are warranted because of the rapid development of new techniques and devices for such interventions.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The receipt of remote clinical care for children via telecommunications (pediatric telemedicine) appears to improve access to and quality of care in U.S. emergency departments (EDs), but the actual prevalence and characteristics of pediatric telemedicine receipt remain unclear. We determined the prevalence and current applications of pediatric telemedicine in U.S. EDs, focusing on EDs that received telemedicine from clinicians at other facilities. METHODS:We surveyed all 5,375 U.S. EDs to characterize emergency care in 2016. We then randomly surveyed 130 (39%) of the 337 EDs who reported receiving pediatric telemedicine. The second survey was administered by phone to ED directors primarily. It confirmed that the ED received pediatric telemedicine services in 2017 and asked about ED staffing and the nature, purpose, and concerns with pediatric telemedicine implementation. RESULTS:The first survey (4,507/5,375, 84% response) showed that 337 (8%) EDs reported receiving pediatric telemedicine. Among the randomly sampled EDs completing the second survey (107/130, 82% response), 96 (90%) confirmed 2016 use and 89 (83%) confirmed 2017 use. Reasons for discontinuation included technical and scheduling concerns. Almost all who confirmed their pediatric telemedicine use in 2017 also reported 24/7 availability (98%). The most widely reported use was for patient placement and transfer coordination (80%). Many EDs (39%) reported no challenges with implementing pediatric telemedicine and described its utility. However, the most frequently reported challenges were process concerns (30%), such as concerns about slowing or interrupting providers' work flow and technological concerns (14%). CONCLUSION:Few EDs receive telemedicine for the delivery of pediatric emergency care nationally. Among EDs that do use telemedicine for pediatric care, many report process concerns. Addressing these barriers through focused education or interventions may support EDs in further developing and optimizing this technological adjunct to pediatric emergency care.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth for emergency stroke care delivery (telestroke) has had widespread adoption, enabling many hospitals to obtain stroke center certification. Telehealth for pediatric emergency care has been less widely adopted.ObjectiveOur primary objective was to determine whether differences in policy or certification requirements contributed to differential uptake of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth. We hypothesized that differences in financial incentives, based on differences in patient volume, prehospital routing policy, and certification requirements, contributed to differential emergency department (ED) adoption of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth.MethodsWe used the 2016 National Emergency Department Inventory-USA to identify EDs that were using telestroke and pediatric telehealth services. We surveyed all EDs using pediatric telehealth services (n=339) and a convenience sample of the 1758 EDs with telestroke services (n=366). The surveys characterized ED staffing, transfer patterns, reasons for adoption, and frequency of use. We used bivariate comparisons to examine differences in reasons for adoption and use between EDs with only telestroke services, only pediatric telehealth services, or both.ResultsOf the 442 EDs surveyed, 378 (85.5%) indicated use of telestroke, pediatric telehealth, or both. EDs with both services were smaller in bed size, volume, and ED attending coverage than those with only telestroke services or only pediatric telehealth services. EDs with telestroke services reported more frequent use, overall, than EDs with pediatric telehealth services: 14.1% (45/320) of EDs with telestroke services reported weekly use versus 2.9% (8/272) of EDs with pediatric telehealth services (P<.001). In addition, 37 out of 272 (13.6%) EDs with pediatric telehealth services reported no consults in the past year. Across applications, the most frequently selected reason for adoption was "improving level of clinical care." Policy-related reasons (ie, for compliance with outside certification or standards or for improving ED performance on quality metrics) were rarely indicated as the most important, but these reasons were indicated slightly more often for telestroke adoption (12/320, 3.8%) than for pediatric telehealth adoption (1/272, 0.4%; P=.003).ConclusionsIn 2016, more US EDs had telestroke services than pediatric telehealth services; among EDs with the technology, consults were more frequently made for stroke than for pediatric patients. The most frequently indicated reason for adoption among all EDs was related to clinical care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Identifying profiles of people with mental and substance use disorders who use emergency departments may help guide the development of interventions more appropriate to their particular characteristics and needs. AIMS:To develop a typology for the frequency of visits to the emergency department for mental health reasons based on the Andersen model. METHOD:Questionnaires were completed by patients who attended an emergency department (n = 320), recruited in Quebec (Canada), and administrative data were obtained related to sociodemographic/socioeconomic characteristics, mental health diagnoses including alcohol and drug use, and emergency department and mental health service utilization. A cluster analysis was performed, identifying needs, predisposing and enabling factors that differentiated subclasses of participants according to frequency of emergency department visits for mental health reasons. RESULTS:Four classes were identified. Class 1 comprised individuals with moderate emergency department use and low use of other health services; mostly young, economically disadvantaged males with substance use disorders. Class 2 comprised individuals with high emergency department and specialized health service use, with multiple mental and substance use disorders. Class 3 comprised middle-aged, economically advantaged females with common mental disorders, who made moderate use of emergency departments but consulted general practitioners. Class 4 comprised older individuals with multiple chronic physical illnesses co-occurring with mental disorders, who made moderate use of the emergency department, but mainly consulted general practitioners. CONCLUSIONS:The study found heterogeneity in emergency department use for mental health reasons, as each of the four classes represented distinct needs, predisposing and enabling factors. As such, interventions should be tailored to different classes of patients who use emergency departments, based on their characteristics.

Dataset Information

Safety of intravenous thrombolytic use in four emergency departments without acute stroke teams.

Publications

Safety of intravenous thrombolytic use in four emergency departments without acute stroke teams.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets