Background Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability. Thrombolysis with intravenous (IV) alteplase is the mainstay management of ischaemic stroke. It has a narrow therapeutic window with a high potential for adverse outcomes such as intracranial haemorrhage. The efficacy of alteplase is time and dose dependent with weight-based dosing. National clinical guidelines recommend a dose of 0.9 mg/kg, up to a maximum of 90 mg. (Irish Heart Foundation Council for Stroke 2015). In most hospitals in Ireland however, patients are not weighed prior to thrombolysis. Time pressure and lack of available suitable equipment are factors. Methods This retrospective clinical audit evaluated the dosing of alteplase, estimated and actual weight for a convenience sample of stroke thrombolysis patients treated between 2016–2020 at an Irish University Teaching Hospital. Results 107 patients were audited (62 males, 45 females). Actual and estimated weights were available in 92/107. Weight was not documented (n = 15) due to severe stroke/palliative management (n = 6) or omission (n = 9). 21% (19/92) received the correct dose of 0.9 mg/kg. A further 54% (50/92) received a dose within the range of 0.81–0.99 mg/kg (±10%). 25% received a dose outside this range (> ± 10%). 11% (10/92) were under-thrombolysed and 14% (13/92) over-thrombolysed. 17/92 patients had an intracranial haemorrhage. 35% (n = 6/17) of patients who had an intracranial haemorrhage received a higher dose of thrombolysis (>10%). Conclusion A quarter of patients received inappropriate dosing of alteplase that was outside the range of ±10% of 0.9 mg/kg. While stroke thrombolysis must be completed urgently, an accurate weight should be determined to avoid errors in dosing. A process evaluation of stroke thrombolysis would provide information on how best to incorporate an objective means of weight measurement without delaying treatment.
Background Older adults attend the Emergency Department (ED) frequently. Over 40% are directly discharged from the ED. The risk of adverse outcomes is high following discharge including unplanned ED return, institutionalisation, and mortality. The purpose of this study was to highlight factors that predict these adverse outcomes. Methods A secondary analysis was completed of SOAED (a prospective cohort study examining screening instruments to predict adverse outcomes for undifferentiated older adults attending the ED) and OPTIMEND (randomised control trial examining the effectiveness of an intervention by a team of Health and Social Care Professionals along with usual care and compared this to standard ED care alone). Inclusion criteria were adults aged 65 years and over presenting to ED at a University Teaching Hospital with medical complaints and a Manchester Triage System category 2–5. Results Three-hundred and nine patients were discharged directly from ED (mean age 80 years; 58% female). 96 patients re-attended ED within 6 months. 66 patients were re-hospitalised within 6 months. 16 patients died within six months of discharge. 63% of the discharged patients screened positive for frailty measured by PRISMA-7 (3 or more). Relative risk ratio analysis confirmed that the risk of revisiting a hospital was 1.241 times for patients that scored frail compared to those who scored not frail. The risk of mortality was 1.075 times for patients that scored frail compared to those who scored not frail. The risk of being admitted to a nursing home was 1.146 times for patients that scored frail compared to those who scored not frail. Conclusion Older people have a high ED re-attendance rate of 31% after an index visit. Frailty (scored on PRISMA-7) is a significant predictor of adverse outcomes. Focused screening and intervention for frail patients who attend the ED should be a priority.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.