Safety of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Chronic Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Five-Year Multicenter Study

Intravenous thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients with a prior intracranial hemorrhage: a meta-analysis

Background:

The history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH) is considered a contraindication for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) among patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Objective: This study aimed at comparing the safety of IVT among patients with and without a history of ICrH.

Methods:

We performed a systematic review of the literature. Data regarding all AIS patients with prior ICrH who received IVT were retrieved. Meta-analysis was performed to compare the rate of symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation (sHT), death within 90 days, and favorable and unfavorable 90-day functional outcomes based on modified Rankin Scale (mRS) among stroke patients with and without prior ICrH.

Results:

Out of 13,032 reviewed records, 7 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Quantitative synthesis of data regarding the rate of sHT (5068 patients) revealed no significant difference between the two groups [odds ratio, OR: 1.55 (0.77, 3.12); p = 0.22]. However, a significantly higher risk of death within 90 days [OR: 3.91 (2.16, 7.08); p < 0.00001] and a significantly higher 90-day poor functional outcomes (mRS, 4–6) [OR: 1.57 (1.07, 2.30); p = 0.02] were observed among patients with prior ICrH. Likewise, the percentage of 90-day good functional outcomes (mRS, 0–1) was lower in the prior ICrH group [OR: 0.54 (0.35, 0.84); p = 0.06]. Subgroup analyses in patients with a history of ICrH (based on both patients’ medical history and imaging confirmation) revealed no significant between-group differences in rates of sHT. Also, sensitivity analysis consisting of only studies using standard-dose IVT showed no difference in sHT rates and 90-day outcomes between the two groups. There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I² >50%) among included studies.

Conclusion:

The results of this study indicated that prior history of ICrH does not increase the risk of sHT post-IVT, but it is associated with a higher risk of death and poor functional outcomes in 90 days.

Evaluating the safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke patients with a history of intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Previous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is labelled as a contraindication for the use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) based on expert opinion. However, there is a paucity of data available regarding the benefits and risks of IV-tPA in this population. Recent small retrospective cohort studies reporting its off-label use suggest it may be beneficial. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV-tPA in AIS patients with previous ICH. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on IV-tPA use in AIS patients with and without previous ICH. We searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library from inception to 20 April 2021. Outcomes measured included symptomatic ICH (sICH), 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, and 3-month mortality. We included seven retrospective cohort studies comprising 5760 AIS patients who had received IV-tPA, of which 134 had previous ICH. There was no significant difference in the odds of sICH (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78-3.15, p = 0.21) and 3-month mRS (mRS 0-1: OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37-1.65, p = 0.52; mRS 0-2: OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.36-3.15, p = 0.90) between patients with and without previous ICH. There was a trend towards higher 3-month mortality in patients with previous ICH (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.98-2.91, p = 0.06), although this did not reach statistical significance. The use of IV-tPA in AIS patients with previous ICH was not associated with an increased risk of sICH or disability at 3 months. Further larger studies are needed to establish the safety and efficacy of IV-tPA use in this population.

Off-label use of intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: a critical appraisal of randomized and real-world evidence

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) represents the only systemic reperfusion therapy able to reverse neurological deficit in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Despite its effectiveness in patients with or without large vessel occlusion, it can be offered only to a minority of them, because of the short therapeutic window and additional contraindications derived from stringent but arbitrary inclusion and exclusion criteria used in landmark randomized controlled clinical trials. Many absolute or relative contraindications lead to disparities between the official drug label and guidelines or expert recommendations. Based on recent advances in neuroimaging and evidence from cohort studies, off-label use of IVT is increasingly incorporated into the daily practice of many stroke centers. They relate to extension of therapeutic time windows, and expansion of indications in co-existing conditions originally listed in exclusion criteria, such as use of alternative thrombolytic agents, pre-treatment with antiplatelets, anticoagulants or low molecular weight heparins. In this narrative review, we summarize recent randomized and real-world data on the safety and efficacy of off-label use of IVT for AIS. We also make some practical recommendations to stroke physicians regarding the off-label use of thrombolytic agents in complex and uncommon presentations of AIS or other conditions mimicking acute cerebral ischemia. Finally, we provide guidance on the risks and benefits of IVT in numerous AIS subgroups, where equipoise exists and guidelines and treatment practices vary.

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke

Intravenous thrombolysis is the only approved systemic reperfusion treatment for patients with acute ischaemic stroke. These European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist physicians in their clinical decisions with regard to intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified relevant clinical questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided if not enough evidence was available to provide recommendations based on the GRADE approach. We found high quality evidence to recommend intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase to improve functional outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 h after symptom onset. We also found high quality evidence to recommend intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke on awakening from sleep, who were last seen well more than 4.5 h earlier, who have MRI DWI-FLAIR mismatch, and for whom mechanical thrombectomy is not planned. These guidelines provide further recommendations regarding patient subgroups, late time windows, imaging selection strategies, relative and absolute contraindications to alteplase, and tenecteplase. Intravenous thrombolysis remains a cornerstone of acute stroke management. Appropriate patient selection and timely treatment are crucial. Further randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making with regard to tenecteplase and the use of intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion.

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.