Dataset Information

Clinical-CT mismatch defined NIHSS ≥ 8 and CT-ASPECTS ≥ 9 as a reliable marker of candidacy for intravenous thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical-diffusion mismatch between stroke severity and diffusion-weighted imaging lesion volume seems to identify stroke patients with penumbra. However, urgent magnetic resonance imaging is sometimes inaccessible or contraindicated. Thus, we hypothesized that using brain computed tomography (CT) to determine a baseline "clinical-CT mismatch" may also predict the responses to thrombolytic therapy.

Methods

Brain CT lesions were measured using the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS). A total of 104 patients were included: 79 patients with a baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≥ 8 and a CT-ASPECTS ≥ 9 who were defined as clinical-CT mismatch-positive (P group) and 25 patients with an NIHSS score ≥ 8 and a CT-ASPECTS < 9 who were defined as clinical-CT mismatch-negative (the N group). We compared their clinical outcomes, including early neurological improvement (ENI), early neurological deterioration (END), delta NIHSS score (admission NIHSS-baseline NIHSS score), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), mortality, and favorable outcome at 3 months.

Results

Patients in the P group had a greater proportion of favorable outcome at 3 months (p = 0.032) and more frequent ENI (p = 0.038) and a greater delta NIHSS score (p = 0.001), as well as a lower proportion of END (p = 0.004) than those in the N group patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence rates of sICH and mortality between the two groups.

Conclusions

Clinical-CT mismatch may be able to predict which patients would benefit from intravenous thrombolysis.

SUBMITTER: Wu HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8087040 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectivesThe objective was to evaluate safety of intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) delivered without dedicated thrombolytic stroke teams.MethodsThis 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

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:BackgroundRates of thrombolysis in most countries are well below best practice benchmarks. We aimed to investigate thrombolysis utilization and its associated factors in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients in Hubei province, China, to assess neurologists' experiences of the treatment, and to identify barriers against the treatment from perspective of AIS patients and neurologists.MethodsSurvey of 2096 AIS patients and 709 neurologists from 66 hospitals was conducted in Hubei province between 2014 and 2015. A multivariable logistic regression model was utilized to identify the factors associated with thrombolysis utilization and neurologists' experiences with thrombolysis.ResultsOf the 2096 AIS patients, only 3.8% received thrombolysis. Of the 709 neurologists, 66.0% reported using thrombolysis for AIS patients. The main reasons for not using thrombolysis were late arrival of patients, fear of the risk of complications of thrombolysis, and light or quickly recovered stroke symptoms. The behavior and clinical characteristics of patients, including early admission to hospital (odds ratio [OR] = 5.81, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 3.31-10.20), using emergency medical services to be hospitalized (OR = 3.36, 95% CI 2.00-5.62), stroke history (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-0.99), and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score < 4 (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.77) were shown to significantly affect the thrombolysis utilization in the multivariate model. In addition, hospital grade (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.84-4.37), education level (OR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.09-5.73), and working years (OR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18-3.00) were strongly associated with neurologists' experiences of thrombolysis.ConclusionsA very low proportion of AIS patients received thrombolysis in Hubei province, China. Considerable education programs and interventions were required regarding knowledge of stroke treatment for clinicians and proper behavior after stroke for AIS patients and their families.