Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2015
Safety and feasibility of intravenous rt-PA in the Emergency Department without a neurologist-based stroke unit: an observational study.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early intravenous thrombolysis has proven to be a safe and effective therapy for selected patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Nowadays, thrombolysis is usually delivered by neurologists in "hub" referral centers. However, only a few among eligible patients actually receive treatment. Barriers to early administration of thrombolysis are represented by delays in presentation to referral centers, in-hospital and transfer delays, as well as changes in symptoms during assessment time. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and rate of thrombolysis provided in Emergency Department (ED) of a district hospital without neurological stroke team. Consecutive patients with AIS treated with intravenous thrombolysis were prospectively enrolled in this observational study, conducted between May 2010 and December 2013. The main outcomes evaluated were: mortality, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), systemic adverse events, and neurological recovery. Secondly, all patients admitted with ischemic stroke were retrospectively screened to assess the reasons for exclusion to treatment and the rate of thrombolysis delivered. During the study period, 43 patients with AIS received intravenous rt-PA treatment. The mortality rate at three months was 9.5 % (4/43; 95 % CI 2.6-22.1) and total ICH at any-time CT scan imaging was 18.6 % (8/43; 8.4-33.4). At seven days or at discharge, 35/43 patients (81.4 %; 66.6-91.6) presented a neurological improvement and 46.5 % (20/43; 31.2-62.3) a complete neurological recovery presenting a normal NIHSS, while 9.5 % of patients remained in steady conditions and other 9.5 % worsened (4/43; 2.6-22.1). Outcomes do not appear to be very different from those reported in SITS-MOST study cohort. Among the overall 732 patients with AIS, 117 (16.0 %; 13.4-18.8) were eligible for age and arrived within the three-hour window of time, and the thrombolysis rate was 5.9 % (43/732; 4.3-7.8). Administration of rt-PA in an ED setting without neurological specialized stroke unit seems to be feasible and safe after adequate training. Thrombolysis rate found seems to be favorably comparable with the national average in specialist stroke units. If such data were confirmed by studies of greater dimension, this may imply the ability to perform thrombolysis even in smaller centers without the neurologist, thus being able to treat a greater number of patients in the times proven effective for thrombolysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.