Background:It is a well-known fact that very few patients of stroke arrive at the hospital within the window period of thrombolysis. Even among those who do, not all receive thrombolytic therapy.Objective:The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of early arrival ischemic strokes (within 6 h of stroke onset) in our hospital and to evaluate the causes of nonadministration of intravenous and/or intraarterial thrombolysis in them.Materials and Methods:Data of all early arrival acute stroke patients between January 2010 and January 2015 were included. Factors determining nonadministration of intravenous and/or intraarterial thrombolysis in early arrival strokes were analyzed.Results:Out of 2,593 stroke patients, only 145 (5.6%) patients presented within 6 h of stroke onset and among them 118 (81.4%) patients had ischemic stroke and 27 (18.6%) patients had hemorrhagic stroke. A total of 89/118 (75.4%) patients were thrombolyzed. The reasons for nonadministration of thrombolysis in the remaining 29 patients were analyzed, which included unavoidable factors in 8/29 patients [massive infarct (N = 4), hemorrhagic infarct (N = 1), gastrointestinal bleed (N = 1), oral anticoagulant usage with prolonged international normalized ratio (INR) (N = 1), and recent cataract surgery (N = 1)]. Avoidable factors were found for 21/29 patients, include nonaffordability (N = 7), fear of bleed (N = 4), rapidly improving symptoms (N = 4), mild stroke (N = 2), delayed neurologist referral within the hospital (N = 2), and logistic difficulty in organizing endovascular treatment (N = 2).Conclusion:One-fourth of early ischemic stroke patients in our study were not thrombolyzed even though they arrived within the window period. The majority of the reasons for nonadministration of thrombolysis were potentially preventable, such as nonaffordability, intrahospital delay, and nonavailability of newer endovascular interventions.
Background:
Traditional diagnostic techniques such as clinical examination and electrodiagnosis are less sensitive in diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). Ultrasonography (USG) is increasingly being used to diagnose UNE. However, clinical applicability is limited by the lack of uniformity in the previous studies. Therefore, we aimed to study in the Indian patients the diagnostic utility of the ulnar nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) and a novel parameter-entrapment index (EI) in UNE measured by USG and to find if both these parameters correlate with the electrodiagnostic severity.
Methods:
This retrospective casecontrol study included 28 patients (36 nerves) of UNE and 12 (24 nerves) age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Electrodiagnostic severity was graded using the Padua classification. USG was performed in both groups, and CSA was measured at the medial epicondyle (ME) and 5 cm proximally and distally. EI was calculated by multiplying the ratio of CSA above ME over CSA at ME by 100. Best cutoffs were derived by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
Results:
UNE group had significantly higher CSA at all three locations and lower EI than the control group. CSA at ME ≥9.7 mm
2
and EI ≤61.5 has sensitivity and specificity of 88.9%/87.5% and 72.2%/79.2%, respectively. There was no significant difference in CSA and EI between nonsevere and severe UNE groups.
Conclusion:
CSA at ME and EI have good sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing UNE. However, they cannot differentiate nonsevere from severe UNE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.