The Potential Impact of Maintaining a 3-Hour IV Thrombolysis Window: How Many More Patients can we Safely Treat?

Michael J Lyerly, Karen C Albright, Amelia K Boehme, Reza Bavarsad Shahripour, James T Houston, Pawan V Rawal, Niren Kapoor, Muhammad Alvi, April Sisson, Anne W Alexandrov, Andrei V Alexandrov
{"title":"The Potential Impact of Maintaining a 3-Hour IV Thrombolysis Window: How Many More Patients can we Safely Treat?","authors":"Michael J Lyerly, Karen C Albright, Amelia K Boehme, Reza Bavarsad Shahripour, James T Houston, Pawan V Rawal, Niren Kapoor, Muhammad Alvi, April Sisson, Anne W Alexandrov, Andrei V Alexandrov","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2008, the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study-3 (ECASS-3) demonstrated that intravenous-tissue plasminogen activator could be safely administered for acute stroke patients presenting between 3 and 4.5 hours from symptom onset. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration rejected expansion of this time window in the United States. We sought to determine how many fewer patients would be treated by maintaining this restricted time window.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed charts from patients who received intravenous thrombolysis at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between January 2009 and December 2011. Patients were divided into two groups (treated within 3 hours of onset, treated between 3 and 4.5 hours from onset). Demographics, stroke severity and protocol deviations according to the ECASS-3 trial were collected. Our safety measures were any hemorrhagic transformation, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and systemic hemorrhage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and twelve patients were identified, of whom 192 were included in our analysis. A total of 36 patients (19%) were treated between 3 and 4.5 hours. No statistical differences were seen between age (p=0.633), gender (p=0.677), race (p=0.207) or admission stroke severity (p=0.737). Protocol deviations from the ECASS-3 criteria were found in 20 patients (56%). These were primarily age > 80 and aggressive blood pressure management. Despite these deviations, we did not see significant increases in the rates of adverse events in patients treated in the extended time window.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data are consistent with previously reported international data that IV thrombolysis can safely be used up to 4.5 hours from symptom onset. Restricting the time window to 3 hours would have resulted in almost one-fifth fewer patients treated at our center.</p>","PeriodicalId":89984,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurological disorders & stroke","volume":"1 2","pages":"1015"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901990/pdf/nihms539863.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurological disorders & stroke","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In 2008, the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study-3 (ECASS-3) demonstrated that intravenous-tissue plasminogen activator could be safely administered for acute stroke patients presenting between 3 and 4.5 hours from symptom onset. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration rejected expansion of this time window in the United States. We sought to determine how many fewer patients would be treated by maintaining this restricted time window.

Methods: We reviewed charts from patients who received intravenous thrombolysis at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between January 2009 and December 2011. Patients were divided into two groups (treated within 3 hours of onset, treated between 3 and 4.5 hours from onset). Demographics, stroke severity and protocol deviations according to the ECASS-3 trial were collected. Our safety measures were any hemorrhagic transformation, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and systemic hemorrhage.

Results: Two hundred and twelve patients were identified, of whom 192 were included in our analysis. A total of 36 patients (19%) were treated between 3 and 4.5 hours. No statistical differences were seen between age (p=0.633), gender (p=0.677), race (p=0.207) or admission stroke severity (p=0.737). Protocol deviations from the ECASS-3 criteria were found in 20 patients (56%). These were primarily age > 80 and aggressive blood pressure management. Despite these deviations, we did not see significant increases in the rates of adverse events in patients treated in the extended time window.

Conclusions: Our data are consistent with previously reported international data that IV thrombolysis can safely be used up to 4.5 hours from symptom onset. Restricting the time window to 3 hours would have resulted in almost one-fifth fewer patients treated at our center.

维持3小时静脉溶栓窗口的潜在影响:我们还能安全治疗多少患者?
背景:2008年,欧洲急性卒中合作研究-3 (ECASS-3)表明,静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂可以安全地用于从症状出现3到4.5小时的急性卒中患者。最近,美国食品和药物管理局拒绝在美国扩大这一时间窗口。我们试图确定通过维持这个有限的时间窗口可以减少多少患者的治疗。方法:我们回顾了2009年1月至2011年12月在阿拉巴马大学伯明翰分校接受静脉溶栓治疗的患者的图表。患者分为两组(发病后3小时内治疗,发病后3 ~ 4.5小时治疗)。根据ECASS-3试验收集人口统计学、脑卒中严重程度和方案偏差。我们的安全措施是任何出血转化,症状性脑出血和全身性出血。结果:确定了212例患者,其中192例纳入我们的分析。36例(19%)患者的治疗时间为3 ~ 4.5小时。年龄(p=0.633)、性别(p=0.677)、种族(p=0.207)和入院时脑卒中严重程度(p=0.737)之间无统计学差异。20例患者(56%)发现方案偏离ECASS-3标准。这些主要是80岁和积极的血压管理。尽管存在这些偏差,但我们没有看到在延长的时间窗口内治疗的患者的不良事件发生率显著增加。结论:我们的数据与先前报道的国际数据一致,即在症状出现后4.5小时内静脉溶栓可以安全使用。将时间窗口限制在3小时将导致我们中心的治疗患者减少近五分之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书