Intravenous tPA for Ischemic Stroke Team Performance Over Time, Safety, and Efficacy in a Single-Center, 2-Year Experience

Abstract

Background and Purpose-Safety and efficacy concerns toward thrombolysis for ischemic stroke prevail among many neurologists because of the risks of hemorrhage and the small proportion of suitable patients. We therefore prospectively assessed feasibility, safety, efficacy, and team performance in a single center to prove whether thrombolytic treatment is practical in daily clinical routine. Methods-Patients were prospectively recruited over a 2-year period. Major inclusion and exclusion criteria from large, randomized controlled trials were combined. Prespecified outcome parameters were the modified Rankin scale (MRS) and the Barthel Index (BI) at 3 months and symptomatic hemorrhagic complications. In addition, certain time intervals during the diagnostic process preceding thrombolysis were prospectively recorded. Results-Within 2 years a total of 75 patients underwent intravenous thrombolysis, corresponding to 9.4% of all admitted patients with stroke and 14.9% of patients with ischemic stroke. MeanϮSD age was 68Ϯ13 (range 34 to 90) years; median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 13Ϯ6 (range 2 to 34). Thrombolysis was started at an average time of 144 minutes after symptom onset, and 13 patients (17.3%) were treated beyond 3 hours. Two cerebral hemorrhages (2.7%) occurred. Outcome according to the MRS was good (MRS 0 to 1) in 40%, moderate (MRS 2 to 3) in 32%, and poor (MRS 4 to 5) in 13%; the corresponding results, as measured by the BI, were 61% (BI 95 to 100, good), 16% (BI 55 to 90, moderate), and 8% (BI 0 to 50, poor). The mortality rate was 15%. Over 2 years the median door-to-CT time decreased from 30 to 22 minutes (27%), and the door-to-needle time was shortened from 96 to 73 minutes (14%). The mean number of patients treated per month increased from 2 to 4. Conclusions-Thrombolytic therapy can be performed safely and efficaciously in daily clinical routine. More than a minority of acute stroke patients might be eligible for intravenous thrombolysis. The performance of a stroke team can be improved over time, subsequently increasing the proportion of eligible patients and thereby the efficiency of the method.

Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: results of the Canadian Alteplase for Stroke Effectiveness Study

“…3), and was similar to rates in other reported series. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (6.6%) of the patients (95% CI 5.2%-8.2%) ( Table 3). Of the 52 (4.6%) who had a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, 39 (75%) died in hospital.…”

Safety of routine IV thrombolysis between 3 and 4.5 h after ischemic stroke

“…Thirdly, the results were obtained from a single-center that serves as regional stroke reference center. Since safety and efficacy of thrombolysis depends much on the experience of a given center [24], our result may have a limited generalizability. Fourthly, we performed no routine brain CT scans after thrombolysis, therefore we could not study the incidence of asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages in the early and late group.…”

Pre- and In-Hospital Delays From Stroke Onset to Intra-arterial Thrombolysis

“…12,14,[17][18][19][20][21] It has also been shown that educational programs for both the public and physicians increase the number of patients arriving at the hospitals within the time limits for thrombolysis. 22 In US stroke centers, up to 59% of the patients who presented within 24 hours of symptom onset arrived within 3 hours.…”