Is point-of-care accurate for indicating thrombolysis in anticoagulated patients on oral anticoagulation treatments?

Predictors of thrombolysis in the telestroke and non telestroke settings for hypertensive acute ischemic stroke patients

BACKGROUND

In acute ischemic stroke patients, telestroke technology provides sustainable approaches to improve the use of thrombolysis therapy. How this is achieved as it relates to inclusion or exclusion of clinical risk factors for thrombolysis is not fully understood. We investigated this in a population of hypertensive stroke patients.

METHODS

Structured data from a regional stroke registry that contained telestroke and non telestroke patients with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke with history of hypertension were collected between January 2014 and June 2016. Clinical risk factors associated with inclusion or exclusion for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) in the telestroke and non telestroke were identified using multiple regression analysis. Associations between variables and rtPA in the regression models were determined using variance inflation factors while the fitness of each model was determined using the ROC curve to predict the power of each logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The non telestroke admitted more patients (62% vs 38%), when compared with the telestroke. Although the telestroke admitted fewer patients, it excluded 11% and administered thrombolysis therapy to 89% of stroke patients with hypertension. In the non telestroke group, adjusted odd ratios showed significant associations of NIH stroke scale score (OR = 1.059, 95% CI, 1.025-1.093, P < 0.001) and coronary artery disease (OR = 2.003, 95% CI, 1.16-3.457, P = 0.013) with inclusion, while increasing age (OR = 0.979, 95% CI, 0.961-0.996, P = 0.017), higher INR (OR = 0.146, 95% CI, 0.032-0.665, P = 0.013), history of previous stroke (OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.223-0.68, P = 0.001), and renal insufficiency (OR = 0.153, 95% CI, 0.046-0.508, P = 0.002) were associated with rtPA exclusion. In the telestroke, only direct admission to the telestroke was associated with rtPA administration, (OR = 4.083, 95% CI, 1.322-12.611, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

The direct admission of hypertensive stroke patients to the telestroke network was the only factor associated with inclusion for thrombolysis therapy even after adjustment for baseline variables. The telestroke technology provides less restrictive criteria for clinical risk factors associated with the inclusion of hypertensive stroke patients for thrombolysis.

Point-of-care coagulation testing for reducing in-hospital delay in thrombolysis

Background:

The confirmation of prothrombin time international normalized ratio by a central laboratory often delays intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Objectives:

We investigated the feasibility, reliability, and usefulness of point-of-care determination of prothrombin time international normalized ratio for stroke thrombolysis.

Methods:

Among 312 patients with ischemic stroke, 202 who arrived at the emergency room within 4.5 h of stroke onset were enrolled in the study. Patients with lost orders for point-of-care testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio or central laboratory testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio (n = 47) were excluded. We compared international normalized ratio values and the time interval from arrival to the report of test results (door-to-international normalized ratio time) between point-of-care testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio and central laboratory testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio. In patients who underwent thrombolysis, we compared the time interval from arrival to thrombolysis (door-to-needle time) between the current study population and historic cohort at our center.

Results:

In the 155 patients included in the study, the median door-to-international normalized ratio time was 9.0 min (interquartile range, 5.0–12.0 min) for point-of-care testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio and 46.0 min (interquartile range, 38.0–55.0 min) for central laboratory testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio (p < 0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficient between point-of-care testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio and central laboratory testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio was 0.975 (95% confidence interval: 0.966–0.982). Forty-nine of the 155 patients underwent intravenous thrombolysis. The door-to-needle time was significantly decreased after implementation of point-of-care testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio (median, 23.0 min; interquartile range, 16.0–29.8 vs median, 46.0 min; interquartile range, 33.5–50.5 min).

Conclusion:

Utilization of point-of-care testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio was feasible in the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Point-of-care testing for the prothrombin time international normalized ratio was quick and reliable and had a pivotal role in expediting thrombolysis.

Point-of-care versus central laboratory testing of INR in acute stroke

OBJECTIVES

Effective anticoagulant therapy is a contraindication to thrombolysis, which is an effective treatment of ischemic stroke if given within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. INR above 1.7 is generally considered a contraindication for thrombolysis. Rapid measurement of INR in warfarin-treated patients is therefore of major importance in order to be able to decide on thrombolysis or not. We asked whether INR measured on a point-of-care instrument would be as good as a central laboratory instrument.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 529 consecutive patients who arrived at the emergency department at a large urban teaching hospital with stroke symptoms were enrolled in the study. INR was measured with a CoaguChek and a Sysmex instrument. Basic clinical information such as age, sex, and diagnosis (if available) was recorded. INR from the instruments was compared using linear regression and Bland-Altman plot.

RESULTS

Of 529 patients, 459 had INR results from both instruments. Among these, 3 patients were excluded as outliers. The rest (n = 456) showed good correlation between the methods (R²  = 0.97). In the current setting, CoaguChek was in median 63 minutes faster than Sysmex.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that point-of-care testing is a safe mean to rapidly acquire a patient's INR value in acute clinical situations.

Major vessel occlusion may predict subtherapeutic anticoagulation intensity and feasibility of administration of intravenous thrombolytics

Objective

We investigated the association between the presence of major vessel occlusion (MVO) and the intensity of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) in cardioembolic high-risk patients taking warfarin. We also evaluated whether the presence of MVO could predict the subtherapeutic range of INR ≤1.7 ensuring safe administration of intravenous thrombolytics.

Methods

The medical records of 177 cardioembolic stroke patients who were taking warfarin between April, 2008 and March, 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the association between vessel occlusion and intensity of INR. To predict INR ≤1.7, decision tree analysis was performed.

Results

INR was inversely associated with MVO in an unadjusted model (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17–0.76), and in a model adjusted for initial NIHSS score and time from symptom onset to arrival (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11–0.73). Fifty-two of 58 (89.7%) patients with MVO had an INR ≤1.7, compared with 83 of 119 (69.7%) patients without MVO. Indication for anticoagulation agent use was dichotomized into NVAF and others, and applied to the subgroup of patients with MVO. All patients with NVAF (31/31, 100%) had INR ≤1.7, while 21 of 27 of the other patients (77.8%) had INR ≤1.7.

Conclusions

Low INR at presentation in cardioembolic stroke patients during anticoagulation treatment was associated with occurrence of major vessel occlusive stroke. Presence of MVO and indications for anticoagulation may be utilized to ensure the feasibility of administration of intravenous thrombolytics.

Preventing bleeding and thromboembolic complications in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing surgery

Neurologists feel uneasy when asked about temporary anticoagulant interruption for surgery in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Rational decisions can be made based on current scientific evidence. Method Critical review of international guidelines and selected references pertaining to bleeding and thromboembolism during periods of oral anticoagulant interruption. Results Withholding oral anticoagulants leads to an increased risk of perioperative thromboembolism, depending on factors such as age, renal and liver function, previous ischemic events, heart failure etc. Surgeries are associated with a variable risk of bleeding - from minimal to very high. Individualized decisions about preoperative drug suspension, bridging therapy with heparin and time to restart oral anticoagulants after hemostasis can significantly reduce these opposing risks. Conclusion Rational decisions can be made after discussion with all Health care team professionals involved and consideration of patient fears and expectations. Formal written protocols should help managing antithrombotic treatment during this delicate period.