4.3 Article

THROMBOLYTIC THERAPY FOR ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE BEYOND THREE HOURS

Journal

JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 82-92

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.009

Keywords

EBM; randomized controlled trial; stroke; thrombolysis; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [KM1CA156708] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [KM1 CA156708-01, KM1 CA156708] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Ischemic cerebrovascular accidents remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke within 3 h of symptom onset of highly select patients has been advocated by some groups since 1995, but trials have yielded inconsistent outcomes. One recent trial demonstrated significant improvement when the therapeutic window was extended to 4.5 h. Clinical Question: Does the intravenous systemic administration of tPA within 4.5 h to select patients with acute ischemic stroke improve functional outcomes? Evidence Review: All randomized controlled trials enrolling patients within 4.5 h were identified, in addition to a meta-analysis of these trial data. Results: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III (ECASS III) clinical trials demonstrated significantly improved outcomes at 3 months, with increased rates of intracranial hemorrhage, whereas ECASS II and the Acute Noninterventional Therapy in Ischemic Stroke (ATLANTIS) study showed increased hemorrhagic complications without improving outcomes. Meta-analysis of trial data from all ECASS trials, NINDS, and ATLANTIS suggest that thrombolysis within 4.5 h improves functional outcomes. Conclusion: Ischemic stroke tPA treatment within 4.5 h seems to improve functional outcomes and increases symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates without significantly increasing mortality. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available