CT-guided thrombolytic treatment of patients with wake-up strokes.
Efficacy
Outcomes
Parallel cohorts
Safety
Thrombolytic treatment
Wake-up strokes
Journal
eNeurologicalSci
ISSN: 2405-6502
Titre abrégé: eNeurologicalSci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101667077
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
08
01
2019
accepted:
04
02
2019
entrez:
5
3
2019
pubmed:
5
3
2019
medline:
5
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Observational studies of thrombolysis outcomes in wake-up acute ischemic stroke patients selected based on non-contrast brain CT criteria suggested that treated patients did as well as or better than those not treated, after adjustment for baseline characteristics. We began offering thrombolytic treatment (IVTPA) to patients presenting with wake-up strokes and normal non-contrast brain CTs, who could be treated within 4.5 h of being found. A retrospective chart review was performed in patients presenting with AIS between November 2014 and December 2017 who received IVTPA. A planned subgroup analysis compared patients with wake-up strokes and normal non-contrast brain CTs to patients with witnessed stroke treated within 4.5 h of being found, or of witnessed onset, respectively. Three hundred and six patients were treated, 279 with witnessed-onset and 27 with wake-up strokes. The latter were not candidates for endovascular intervention. Efficacy and safety were similar in both groups. Discharges home, respectively, were 143(53%) and 13(48%); facility discharges were 112(40.1%) and 11(40.7%) and in-hospital mortality was 19 (6.8%) and 3 (11%). Treatment-related symptomatic bleeds were: 5(1.8%) and 1 (3.7%), respectively. The findings affirm, in a new clinical series reflecting routine practice, that it is safe to treat with IVTPA patients with wake-up strokes and a normal brain CT scan, who are not candidates for endovascular intervention. We hypothesize, that when the non-contrast brain CT scan is normal, it may be safe to extend beyond 4.5 h the IVTPA treatment eligibility window in similar patients with witnessed-onset stroke.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Observational studies of thrombolysis outcomes in wake-up acute ischemic stroke patients selected based on non-contrast brain CT criteria suggested that treated patients did as well as or better than those not treated, after adjustment for baseline characteristics. We began offering thrombolytic treatment (IVTPA) to patients presenting with wake-up strokes and normal non-contrast brain CTs, who could be treated within 4.5 h of being found.
DESIGN/METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective chart review was performed in patients presenting with AIS between November 2014 and December 2017 who received IVTPA. A planned subgroup analysis compared patients with wake-up strokes and normal non-contrast brain CTs to patients with witnessed stroke treated within 4.5 h of being found, or of witnessed onset, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three hundred and six patients were treated, 279 with witnessed-onset and 27 with wake-up strokes. The latter were not candidates for endovascular intervention. Efficacy and safety were similar in both groups. Discharges home, respectively, were 143(53%) and 13(48%); facility discharges were 112(40.1%) and 11(40.7%) and in-hospital mortality was 19 (6.8%) and 3 (11%). Treatment-related symptomatic bleeds were: 5(1.8%) and 1 (3.7%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings affirm, in a new clinical series reflecting routine practice, that it is safe to treat with IVTPA patients with wake-up strokes and a normal brain CT scan, who are not candidates for endovascular intervention. We hypothesize, that when the non-contrast brain CT scan is normal, it may be safe to extend beyond 4.5 h the IVTPA treatment eligibility window in similar patients with witnessed-onset stroke.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30828649
doi: 10.1016/j.ensci.2019.02.002
pii: S2405-6502(19)30010-3
pmc: PMC6378852
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
91-97Références
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001 Sep;22(8):1534-42
pubmed: 11559501
Lancet. 2004 Mar 6;363(9411):768-74
pubmed: 15016487
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2006;21(5-6):367-71
pubmed: 16490949
Lancet. 2007 Jan 27;369(9558):275-82
pubmed: 17258667
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 25;359(13):1317-29
pubmed: 18815396
Stroke. 2009 Jun;40(6):2079-84
pubmed: 19372447
Stroke. 2009 Aug;40(8):2945-8
pubmed: 19478221
Lancet. 2010 May 15;375(9727):1695-703
pubmed: 20472172
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010 Nov-Dec;19(6):475-9
pubmed: 20719536
Eur J Neurol. 2011 Oct;18(10):1246-50
pubmed: 21366806
Neurology. 2011 May 10;76(19):1662-7
pubmed: 21555734
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Aug;22(6):703-8
pubmed: 22133742
Stroke. 2012 Aug;43(8):2136-41
pubmed: 22569935
Lancet. 2012 Jun 23;379(9834):2364-72
pubmed: 22632907
Lancet. 2012 Jun 23;379(9834):2352-63
pubmed: 22632908
Stroke. 2013 Feb;44(2):427-31
pubmed: 23287781
Stroke. 2013 Mar;44(3):870-947
pubmed: 23370205
Stroke. 2013 Apr;44(4):1080-4
pubmed: 23444310
Stroke. 2013 Aug;44(8):2226-31
pubmed: 23723307
JAMA. 2013 Jun 19;309(23):2480-8
pubmed: 23780461
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Aug;12(8):768-76
pubmed: 23791822
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 29;(7):CD000213
pubmed: 25072528
Lancet. 2014 Nov 29;384(9958):1929-35
pubmed: 25106063
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015 Jan;24(1):48-52
pubmed: 25440358
Stroke. 2015 May;46(5):1281-7
pubmed: 25791717
Stroke. 2015 Oct;46(10):3020-35
pubmed: 26123479
Neurol Clin Pract. 2015 Jun;5(3):247-252
pubmed: 26124982
Neurohospitalist. 2015 Jul;5(3):161-72
pubmed: 26288674
J Neurol Sci. 2016 Oct 15;369:306-309
pubmed: 27653914
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 30;7(10):e016311
pubmed: 29084788
Stroke. 2017 Dec;48(12):e343-e361
pubmed: 29097489
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378(1):11-21
pubmed: 29129157
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):708-718
pubmed: 29364767
Ann Neurol. 2018 May;83(5):980-993
pubmed: 29689135
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 16;379(7):682-683
pubmed: 29766752
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 16;379(7):611-622
pubmed: 29766770
Neurology. 1996 Sep;47(3):835-9
pubmed: 8797492