Intravenous thrombolysis for patients with in-hospital stroke onset: propensity-matched analysis from the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke-East registry

Mechanical thrombectomy for in-hospital stroke: data from the Italian Registry of Endovascular Treatment in Acute Stroke

BACKGROUND

The benefit, safety, and time intervals of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with in-hospital stroke (IHS) are unclear. We sought to evaluate the outcomes and treatment times for IHS patients compared with out-of-hospital stroke (OHS) patients receiving MT.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Italian Registry of Endovascular Treatment in Acute Stroke (IRETAS) between 2015 and 2019. We compared the functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores) at 3 months, recanalization rates, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) after MT. Time intervals from stroke onset-to-imaging, onset-to-groin, and onset-to-end MT were recorded for both groups, as were door-to-imaging and door-to-groin for OHS. A multivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of 5619 patients, 406 (7.2%) had IHS. At 3 months, IHS patients had a lower rate of mRS 0-2 (39% vs 48%, P<0.001) and higher mortality (30.1% vs 19.6%, P<0.001). Recanalization rates and sICH were similar. Time intervals (min, median (IQR)) from stroke onset-to-imaging, onset-to-groin, and onset-to-end MT were favorable for IHS (60 (34-106) vs 123 (89-188.5); 150 (105-220) vs 220 (168-294); 227 (164-303) vs 293 (230-370); all P<0.001), whereas OHS had lower door-to-imaging and door-to-groin times compared with stroke onset-to-imaging and onset-to-groin for IHS (29 (20-44) vs 60 (34-106), P<0.001; 113 (84-151) vs 150 (105-220); P<0.001). After adjustment, IHS was associated with higher mortality (aOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.35, P<0.001) and a shift towards worse functional outcomes in the ordinal analysis (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.66, P=0.015).

CONCLUSION

Despite favorable time intervals for MT, IHS patients had worse functional outcomes than OHS patients. Delays in IHS management were detected.

National Institute of Health Stroke Scale was associated with the immediate and long-term prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine whether the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale was associated with the short- and long-term prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis.

METHODS

A total of 247 patients with acute ischemic stroke admitted to the hospital from April 2019 to October 2020 were retrospectively selected as study subjects, and the immediate and long-term prognosis after thrombolysis was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale and divided into good prognosis group (119 cases) and poor prognosis group (128 cases) based on the effect of thrombolysis. Both groups were treated with alteplase, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale of the two groups was compared, and the factors affecting the prognosis of acute ischemic stroke were analyzed.

RESULTS

After intravenous thrombolysis, 24 h, and 7 days of treatment, the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale in the poor prognosis group was higher than those of patients in the good prognosis group, and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). The results of the multivariate analysis suggested that National Institute of Health Stroke Scale before treatment was an independent factor associated with the 3-month (OR: 1.068, 95%CI 1.015-1.123, p=0.011) and long-term poor prognosis (OR: 1.064, 95%CI 1.012-1.119, p=0.015) in patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous thrombolysis after adjustment of age, gender, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumer, onset-to-door time, door-to-needle time, and imaging score.

CONCLUSION

The National Institute of Health Stroke Scale could be a promising indicator for the prognosis, and active intervention is needed to improve the quality of life in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Effect of Postoperative Stroke Timing on Perioperative Mortality After Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

In-hospital stroke (IHS) has been associated with worse outcomes than out-of-hospital stroke (OHS) due to delays in diagnosis and treatment. A paucity of studies exists comparing the timing of postoperative stroke after carotid revascularization. We aimed to study the effect of IHS versus OHS on postoperative mortality in carotid revascularization patients in a large-scale national database.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) between 2011 and 2018 in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Statistical analysis included chi-squared test and multivariable logistic regression. Patients were divided based on postoperative stroke timing (no stroke, IHS, or OHS) as well as procedure type (CEA or CAS).

RESULTS

A total of 31,304 carotid revascularizations were performed with 420 (1.3%) IHSs and 207 (0.7%) OHSs. On adjusted analysis, there was significantly higher perioperative mortality with both IHS [odds ratio (OR): 19.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.61-28.18, P < 0.001] and OHS [OR: 29.73, 95% CI: 18.76-45.82, P < 0.001]. There was no difference in mortality after OHS versus IHS [OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 0.89-2.55, P = 0.161].

CONCLUSIONS

Any postoperative stroke after carotid revascularization significantly increased the odds of 30-day mortality. In contrast to previous studies demonstrating worse outcomes after IHS than OHS, we observed similar 30-day mortality between the 2 stroke categories. Improved follow-up and early recognition with rescue within carotid revascularization patients compared to the general population could potentially contribute to these results. However, overall mortality remains high for any postoperative stroke following carotid revascularization, emphasizing the importance of vigilant in-hospital monitoring and follow-up even after discharging the patient.

Factors delaying intravenous thrombolytic therapy in acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This review examined factors that delay thrombolysis and what management strategies are currently employed to minimise this delay, with the aim of suggesting future directions to overcome bottlenecks in treatment delivery.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy included a combination of synonyms and controlled vocabularies from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and EmTree covering brain ischemia, cerebrovascular accident, fibrinolytic therapy and Alteplase. The search was conducted using Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), PubMed and Cochrane Library databases using truncations and Boolean operators. The literature search excluded review articles, trial protocols, opinion pieces and case reports. Inclusion criteria were: (1) The article directly related to thrombolysis in ischaemic stroke, and (2) The article examined at least one factor contributing to delay in thrombolytic therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-two studies were included. Pre-hospital factors resulted in the greatest delay to thrombolysis administration. In-hospital factors relating to assessment, imaging and thrombolysis administration also contributed. Long onset-to-needle times were more common in those with atypical, or less severe, symptoms, the elderly, patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and those living alone. Various strategies currently exist to reduce delays. Processes which have achieved the greatest improvements in time to thrombolysis are those which integrate out-of-hospital and in-hospital processes, such as the Helsinki model.

CONCLUSION

Further integrated processes are required to maximise patient benefit from thrombolysis. Expansion of community education to incorporate less common symptoms and provision of alert pagers for patients may provide further reduction in thrombolysis times.

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.

[Analysis of intravenous thrombolysis time and prognosis in patients with in-hospital stroke]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the time delay between in-hospital stroke and out-of-hospital stroke patients, and to explore the influence factors for the prognosis of in-hospital stroke patients treated by intravenous thrombolysis.

METHODS

Clinical data of 3050 patients with ischemic stroke who received intravenous thrombolysis in 71 hospitals in Zhejiang province from June 2017 to September 2018 were analyzed. Differences of time delay including door to imaging time (DIT), imaging to needle time (INT) and door to needle time (DNT) between in-hospital stroke (n=101) and out-of-hospital stroke (n=2949) were observed. The influencing factors for the outcome at 3 month after intravenous thrombolysis in patients with in-hospital stroke were analyzed using binary logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with in-hospital stroke had longer DIT[53.5 (32.0-79.8) min vs. 20.0 (14.0-28.0) min, P<0.01], longer IDT[47.5(27.3-64.0)min vs. 36.0(24.0-53.0)min, P<0.01], and longer DNT[99.0 (70.5-140.5) min vs. 55.0 (41.0-74.0) min, P<0.01], compared with patients with out-of-hospital stroke; patients in comprehensive stroke center had longer DIT[59.5(44.5-83.3) min vs. 37.5(16.5-63.5) min, P<0.01], longer DNT[110.0(77.0-145.0) min vs. 88.0 (53.8-124.3) min, P<0.05], but shorter INT[36.5(23.8-60.3)min vs. 53.5 (34.3-64.8) min, P<0.05], compared with patients in primary stroke center. Age (OR=0.934, 95%CI: 0.882-0.989, P<0.05) and baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score (OR=0.912, 95%CI: 0.855-0.973, P<0.01) were independent risk factors for prognosis of in-hospital stroke patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital stroke had longer DIT and DNT than out-of-hospital stroke, which suggests that a more smooth thrombolysis process of in-hospital stroke should be established.

A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke - The South London Stroke Register

Background

Stroke care and outcomes have improved significantly over the past decades. It is unclear if patients who had a stroke in hospital (in-hospital stroke, IHS) experienced similar improvements to those who were admitted with stroke (community-onset stroke, COS).

Methods

Data from the South London Stroke Register were analysed to estimate trends in processes of care and outcomes across three cohorts (1995–2001, 2002–2008, 2009–2015). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for each cohort. Associations between patient location at stroke onset, processes of care, and outcomes were investigated using multiple logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Of 5,119 patients admitted to hospital and registered between 1995 and 2015, 552(10.8%) had IHS. Brain imaging rates increased from 92.4%(COS) and 78.3%(IHS) in 1995–2001 to 100% for COS and IHS in 2009–2015. Rates of stroke unit admission rose but remained lower for IHS (1995–2001: 32.2%(COS) vs. 12.4%(IHS), 2002–2008: 77.1%(COS) vs. 50.0%(IHS), 2009–2015: 86.3%(COS) vs. 65.4%(IHS)). After adjusting for patient characteristics and case-mix, IHS was independently associated with lower rates of stroke unit admission in each cohort (1995–2001: OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29–0.82, 2002–2008: 0.29, 0.18–0.45, 2009–2015: 0.22, 0.11–0.43). In 2009–2015, thrombolysis rates were lower for ischaemic IHS (17.8%(COS) vs. 13.8%(IHS)). Despite a decline, in-hospital mortality remained significantly higher after IHS in 2009–2015 (13.7%(COS) vs. 26.7%(IHS)). Five-year mortality rates declined for COS from 58.9%(1995–2001) to 35.2%(2009–2015) and for IHS from 80.8%(1995–2001) to 51.1%(2009–2015). In multivariable analysis, IHS was associated with higher mortality over five years post-stroke in each cohort (1995–2001: HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.03–1.57, 2002–2008: 1.24, 0.99–1.55, 2009–2016: 1.39, 0.95–2.04).

Conclusions

Despite significant improvements for IHS patients similar to those for COS patients, rates of stroke unit admission and thrombolysis remain lower, and short- and long-term outcomes poorer after IHS. Factors preventing IHS patients from entering evidence-based stroke-specific hospital pathways in a timely fashion need further investigation.

Glomerular Filtration Rate is Associated with Hemorrhagic Transformation in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients without Thrombolytic Therapy

Background:

Whether there is a relationship between glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and hemorrhagic transformation (HT) after acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is still under debate. The aim of our study was to determine whether the GFR level is a predictor of HT in AIS patients without thrombolytic therapy (TT).

Methods:

Consecutive AIS patients without TT were included in this prospective study from January 2014 to December 2016 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. We divided them into two groups (HT and non-HT group) and meticulously collected baseline characteristics and laboratory and imaging data of interested individuals. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess the correlation between GFR and HT in stroke patients without TT.

Results:

Among 426 consecutive patients, 74 (17.3%) presented HT (mean age: 65 ± 12 years, number of male patients: 47) on the follow-up scans. In multivariate regression analysis, HT was significantly associated with low GFR (odds ratio [OR] = 3.708, confidence interval [CI] = 1.326–10.693, P = 0.013), atrial fibrillation (AF; OR = 2.444, CI = 1.087–5.356, P = 0.027), large cerebral infarction (OR = 2.583, CI = 1.236–5.262, P = 0.010), and hypoalbuminemia (HA; OR = 4.814, CI = 1.054–22.153, P = 0.037) for AIS patients without TT.

Conclusions:

The present study strongly showed that lower GFR is an independently predictor of HT; in addition, large infarct volume, AF, and HA are also important risks of HT for AIS patients without TT, which offered a practical information that risk factors should be paid attention or eliminated to prevent HT for stroke patients though the level of evidence seems to be unstable.

Intravenous Thrombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients on Dual Antiplatelets

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the outcomes of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients on dual antiplatelet therapy prior to stroke onset.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke (SITS) International Stroke Thrombolysis Register on consecutive IVT-treated AIS patients during a 7-year period (2010-2017). In propensity score matched groups of patients with dual antiplatelet pretreatment and no antiplatelet pretreatment, we compared: (1) symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH), according to SITS Monitoring Study (MOST), European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS) II, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) definitions; (2) 3-month mortality; (3) 3-month favorable functional outcome (FFO; modified Rankin Scale [mRS] scores = 0-1); (4) 3-month functional independence (FI; mRS scores = 0-2); and (5) distribution of the 3-month mRS scores. Dual antiplatelet pretreatment was defined as all possible combinations among aspirin, clopidogrel, dipyridamole, and any other antiplatelet.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 2 groups of 1,043 patients each, balanced for all baseline characteristics. In the propensity score matched analysis, the 2 groups had comparable (p > 0.017 using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons) SICH rates according to SITS-MOST (2.9% vs 1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.03 to -0.01), ECASS II (5.2% vs 4.4%, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.01), and NINDS (7.7% vs 6.6%, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.01) definitions. No differences in the 3-month mortality (17.9% vs 16.6%, 95% CI = -0.05 to 0.02), FFO (45.6% vs 46.0%, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.05), FI (59.2% vs 60.7%, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.06), or distribution in 3-month mRS scores (2 [1-4] vs 2 [0-4], 95% CI = -0.29 to 0.09) were documented between the 2 groups.

INTERPRETATION

Given that patients on dual antiplatelet pretreatment have similar SICH, 3-month mortality rates, and functional outcomes compared to patients with no antiplatelet pretreatment, dual antiplatelet pretreatment history should not be used as a reason to withhold IVT in otherwise eligible AIS patients. Ann Neurol 2018;83:89-97.