Intravenous fibrinolysis eligibility: a survey of stroke clinicians' practice patterns and review of the literature

Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a significant and devastating complication in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis (ESRD/HD). Since one-third of AIS in ESRD/HD patients occurs during or soon after dialysis, patients are more likely to present within the time window when intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be performed. IVT may improve prognosis in ESRD/HD patients with AIS. However, ESRD/HD patients have been excluded from large trials and may have been withheld from IVT due to concerns about bleeding complications. To date, there is no clear evidence and firm guidance on the safety and efficacy of IVT in ESRD/HD patients with AIS. This narrative review aimed to evaluate critical scientific data on the benefits and risks of IVT use in patients with ESRD/HD and AIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the electronic database of PubMed for studies evaluating the relationship between AIS, ESRD/HD, and IVT. Reference sections and additional publications were also searched manually. Studies on AIS in patients with ESRD/HD requiring maintenance dialysis that referred to IVT were included.

RESULTS

In total, 560 studies were found in the PubMed electronic database during the period covered, of which 10 met the selection criteria. IVT for AIS in ESRD/HD patients could improve neurological outcomes and be safely performed even with the possibility of hemorrhagic complications associated with hypertension. Despite the high complication and mortality rates in ESRD/HD patients with AIS after IVT, the association with IVT was unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

IVT for AIS in ESRD/HD patients may improve outcomes and should not be withheld based solely on ESRD/HD status.

Does the Addition of Non-Approved Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for rtPA Impact Treatment Rates? Findings in Australia, the UK, and the USA

BACKGROUND

Strict criteria for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) eligibility are stipulated on licences for use in ischaemic stroke; however, practitioners may also add non-standard rtPA criteria. We examined eligibility criteria variation in 3 English-speaking countries including use of non-standard criteria, in relation to rtPA treatment rates.

METHODS

Surveys were mailed to 566 eligible hospitals in Australia (AUS), the UK, and the USA. Criteria were pre-classified as standard (approved indication and contraindications) or non-standard (approved warning or researcher "decoy"). Percentage for criterion selection was calculated/compared; linear regression was used to assess the association between use of non-standard criteria and rtPA treatment rates, and to identify factors associated with addition of non-standard criteria.

RESULTS

Response rates were 74% AUS, 65% UK, and 68% USA; mean rtPA treatment rates were 8.7% AUS, 12.7% UK, and 8.7% USA. Median percentage of non-standard inclusions was 33% (all 3 countries) and included National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores > 4, computed tomography (CT) angiography documented occlusion, and favourable CT perfusion. Median percentage of non-standard exclusions was 25% AUS, 28% UK, and 60% USA, and included depressed consciousness, NIHSS > 25, and use of antihypertensive infusions. No AUS or UK sites selected 100% of standard exclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-standard criteria for rtPA eligibility were evident in all three countries and could, in part, explain comparably low use of rtPA. Differences in the use of standard criteria may signify practitioner intolerance for those derived from original efficacy studies that are no longer relevant.

Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke After Recent Myocardial Infarction: Case Series and Systematic Review

Background and Purpose- The safety of IV r-tPA (intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment after recent myocardial infarction (MI) is still a matter of debate. We studied the safety of delivering IV r-tPA to AIS patients with a MI within the preceding 3 months. Methods- Retrospective review of consecutive AIS admitted to 2 tertiary university hospitals' and systematic literature review for AIS patients with history of MI in the previous 3 months. Patients were divided into 2 groups: treated or not treated with standard IV r-tPA dose for AIS. Cardiac complications (cardiac rupture/tamponade, intracardiac thrombus embolization, or life-threatening arrhythmias) were compared between groups and assessed by type of MI (non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], or STEMI) and time elapsed between vascular events. Results- One hundred and two patients were included; 46 (45.1%) were derived from literature review. Median age (interquartile range) was 64 (53-75) years old, and 69 (67.6%) were men. Forty-seven (46.1%) received IV r-tPA. In the treated group, 25 (53.2%) and 23 (48.9%) patients had, respectively, concurrent AIS and MI and STEMI, in comparison with 12 (21.8%; P=0.002) and 36 (65.5%; P=0.110) patients in the nontreated. Four (8.5%) IV r-tPA-treated patients died from confirmed or presumed cardiac rupture/ tamponade, all with a STEMI in the week preceding stroke. This complication occurred in 1 (1.8%) patients in the nontreated group (P=0.178). There were no differences in thrombus embolization (1 [2.1%) versus 2 [3.6]; P=1.000) and life-threatening arrhythmias (3 [6.4%) versus 7 [12.7]; P=0.335). No non-STEMI patients receiving IV r-tPA had cardiac complications. Conclusions- In patients with AIS and recent or concurrent MI, MI type and the time elapsed between the 2 events should be taken into consideration when deciding to deliver IV r-tPA. Although recent non-STEMI or concurrent events seem safe, STEMI in the week preceding stroke should prompt caution. The low number of events and publication bias may have influenced our conclusions.

Safety and Efficacy of Repeated Thrombolysis with Alteplase in Early Recurrent Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The current American Heart Association guidelines for the management of acute ischemic stroke advise against the use of intravenous (IV) alteplase in patients with recurrent stroke occurring within 90 days of their index event. Following these guidelines strictly, patients having early recurrent ischemic stroke would be unable to avail of this reperfusion strategy that has been proven to confer superior clinical outcomes. While some registry-based studies have demonstrated the safety of IV alteplase in this subgroup of patients, data on the repeated use of the drug are lacking. Thus, we aim to determine the safety and efficacy of repeated thrombolysis in patients with early recurrent ischemic strokes.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched for relevant studies: the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials by The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE by PubMed, Health Research and Development Information Network, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Data on symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, 90-day clinical outcomes, systemic hemorrhage and allergic reactionswere synthesized.

RESULTS

Ten articles with 33 patients in total were included in our review. One patient developed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after the second reperfusion attempt and subsequently died from pneumonia. Another died from spontaneous rupture of previously unidentified infrarenal aortic aneurysm. Six of the 13 patients with available follow-up data had good clinical outcomes (Modified Rankin Score 0-2). There were no allergic reactions and other drug-related adverse events noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated IV alteplase can be safe and efficacious in patients who have early recurrent ischemic stroke. Larger studies, trials, or registry-based data are needed to ascertain the encouraging findings of our review.

Clinical Decision-Making for Thrombolysis of Acute Minor Stroke Using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is practice variability in the treatment of patients with minor ischemic stroke with thrombolysis. We sought to determine which clinical factors physicians prioritize in thrombolysis decision-making for minor stroke using adaptive conjoint analysis.

METHODS

We conducted our conjoint analysis using the Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives methodology via the 1000Minds platform to design an online preference survey and circulated it to US physicians involved in stroke care. We evaluated 6 clinical attributes: language/speech deficits, motor deficits, other neurological deficits, history suggestive of increased risk of complication from thrombolysis, age, and premorbid disability. Survey participants were asked to choose between pairs of treatment scenarios with various clinical attributes; scenarios automatically adapted based on participants' prior responses. Preference weights representing the relative importance of each attribute were compared using unadjusted paired t tests. Statistical significance was set at α = .05.

RESULTS

Fifty-four participants completed the survey; 61% were vascular neurologists and 93% worked in academic centers. All neurological deficits were ranked higher than age, premorbid status, or potential contraindications to thrombolysis. Differences between each successive mean preference weight were significant: motor (31.7%, standard deviation [SD]: 9.5), language/speech (24.1%, SD: 9.6), other neurological deficits (16.6%, SD: 6.4), premorbid status (12.9%, SD: 6.6), age (10.1%, SD: 6.3), and potential thrombolysis contraindication (4.7%, SD: 4.4).

CONCLUSION

In a conjoint analysis, surveyed US physicians in academic practice assigned greater weight to motor and speech/language deficits than other neurological deficits, patient age, relative contraindications to thrombolysis, and premorbid disability when deciding to thrombolyse patients with minor stroke.

Cohort profile: Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP): a multicentre research collaboration

PURPOSE

The ThRombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration aims to address clinically relevant questions about safety and outcomes of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy. The findings can provide observational information on treatment of patients derived from everyday clinical practice.

PARTICIPANTS

TRISP is an open, investigator-driven collaborative research initiative of European stroke centres with expertise in treatment with revascularisation therapies and maintenance of hospital-based registries. All participating centres made a commitment to prospectively collect data on consecutive patients with stroke treated with IVT using standardised definitions of variables and outcomes, to assure accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt their local databases to answer novel research questions.

FINDINGS TO DATE

Currently, TRISP comprises 18 centres and registers >10 000 IVT-treated patients. Prior TRISP projects provided evidence on the safety and functional outcome in relevant subgroups of patients who were excluded, under-represented or not specifically addressed in randomised controlled trials (ie, pre-existing disability, cervical artery dissections, stroke mimics, prior statin use), demonstrated deficits in organisation of acute stroke care (ie, IVT during non-working hours, effects of onset-to-door time on onset-to-needle time), evaluated the association between laboratory findings on outcome after IVT and served to develop risk estimation tools for prediction of haemorrhagic complications and functional outcome after IVT.

FUTURE PLANS

Further TRISP projects to increase knowledge of the effect and safety of revascularisation therapies in acute stroke are ongoing. TRISP welcomes participation and project proposals of further centres fulfilling the outlined requirements. In the future, TRISP will be extended to include patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy.

Practice Patterns and Barriers for Intravenous Thrombolysis: A Survey of Neurologists in Saudi Arabia

Only a small fraction of patients with acute ischemic stroke receive intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). We sought to assess barriers and practice patterns in using IVT for acute ischemic stroke among neurologists in Saudi Arabia. An electronic survey was sent to all neurologists registered with the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties. A total of 148 (77.5%) neurologists responded. The most common reported barriers for IVT administration were delayed presentation to hospitals (82.4%) and unclear time of symptom onset (50.0%). Only 9.9% of neurologists reported strict adherence to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines for IVT administration. The most frequently waived criteria were "minor stroke with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] < 5" (49.4%) and "seizure at onset" (45.7%). For the extended 3-4.5-hour window, 18.5% of neurologists reported strict adherence to the four exclusion criteria. The most frequently waived criteria were "age older than 80 years" (53.1%) and "history of both diabetes and prior stroke" (42.0%). In conclusion, most neurologists do not adhere to the IVT exclusion criteria. However, little consensus exists regarding which criteria do not interfere with IVT administration. Barriers to IVT administration were identified and require immediate action by healthcare authorities in Saudi Arabia.

[Acute management of ischemic stroke in 2017]

Acute management of ischemic stroke is a burning topic in 2017 since stroke represents the leading cause of acquired handicap in adults. Over the last past years, major improvement took place, especially with the demonstration of the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy, thus needing to better organize care pathways, and optimize access to neurologists and interventional neuroradiology platforms. Intensive care stroke units remain the pivotal place of patients' management. A multidisciplinary coordination is required, with continuous teaching of all the actors involved in stroke management, so as to increase the number of patients who could benefit from available active treatments.

Scientific Rationale for the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Purpose—

To critically review and evaluate the science behind individual eligibility criteria (indication/inclusion and contraindications/exclusion criteria) for intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (alteplase) treatment in acute ischemic stroke. This will allow us to better inform stroke providers of quantitative and qualitative risks associated with alteplase administration under selected commonly and uncommonly encountered clinical circumstances and to identify future research priorities concerning these eligibility criteria, which could potentially expand the safe and judicious use of alteplase and improve outcomes after stroke.

Methods—

Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association’s Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writers used systematic literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, morbidity and mortality reports, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence and to indicate gaps in current knowledge and, when appropriate, formulated recommendations using standard American Heart Association criteria. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on and approved the final version of this document. The document underwent extensive American Heart Association internal peer review, Stroke Council Leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee.

Results—

After a review of the current literature, it was clearly evident that the levels of evidence supporting individual exclusion criteria for intravenous alteplase vary widely. Several exclusionary criteria have already undergone extensive scientific study such as the clear benefit of alteplase treatment in elderly stroke patients, those with severe stroke, those with diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia, and those with minor early ischemic changes evident on computed tomography. Some exclusions such as recent intracranial surgery are likely based on common sense and sound judgment and are unlikely to ever be subjected to a randomized, clinical trial to evaluate safety. Most other contraindications or warnings range somewhere in between. However, the differential impact of each exclusion criterion varies not only with the evidence base behind it but also with the frequency of the exclusion within the stroke population, the probability of coexistence of multiple exclusion factors in a single patient, and the variation in practice among treating clinicians.

Absolute and Relative Contraindications to IV rt-PA for Acute Ischemic Stroke

Most of the contraindications to the administration of intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) originated as exclusion criteria in major stroke trials. These were derived from expert consensus for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) trial. Despite the fact that the safety and efficacy of IV rtPA has been repeatedly confirmed in large international observational studies over the past 20 years, most patients with acute ischemic stroke disappointingly still do not receive thrombolytic treatment. Some of the original exclusion criteria have proven to be unnecessarily restrictive in real-world clinical practice. It has been suggested that application of relaxed exclusion criteria might increase the IV thrombolysis rate up to 20% with comparable outcomes to thrombolysis with more conventional criteria. We review the absolute and relative contraindications to IV rtPA for acute ischemic stroke, discussing the underlying rationale and evidence supporting these exclusion criteria.

Safety of thrombolytic therapy with rt-PA and transcranial color Doppler ultrasound (TCCS) combined with microbubbles: a histopathologic study on rabbit brain tissues

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effect of thrombolytic therapy with rt-PA (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) and transcranial color Doppler ultrasound (TCCS) combined with microbubbles on histology of brain tissue.

METHODS

New Zealand rabbits were subjected to TCCS based thrombolytic therapy, in 8 groups depending on dose of rt-PA, exposure duration of TCCS and presence of attenuation by skull bone window, 2 animals/group: (1) skull+1/2 rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 10 min, (2) skull+rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 10 min, (3) skull+1/2 rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 20 min, (4) skull+rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 20 min, (5) skull+1/2 rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 30 min, (6) skull+rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 30 min, (7) 1/2 rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 10 min, (8) 1/2 rt-PA+TCCS+MBs, 20 min. The brain tissues were harvested after therapies and submitted for microscopic, electronic microscope and immunohistochemical examination. The histological changes were scored.

RESULTS

TCCS caused exposure duration dependent brain tissue damage. With attenuation by bone window, TCCS based therapies for 10-20 min caused minimal tissue damage. However, significant tissue damage was observed upon TCCS for 30 min in presence of skull bone window, presenting as hemorrhage, misdistribution of organelles, demyelination of nerve fibers, and thinning of basement membrane in blood-brain barrier, which was milder than that after 20 min of exposure to TCCS in absence of bone window. Dose of rt-PA did not affect brain histology in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Short treatment of brain tissue with TCCS through a bone window is relative safe. And skull bone window protected brain tissue from TCCS induced damage.