4.6 Article

Stroke Code Improves Intravenous Thrombolysis Administration in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104862

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Taiwan University Hospital [A116]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose: Timely intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke is associated with better clinical outcomes. Acute stroke care implemented with Stroke Code'' (SC) may increase IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) administration. The present study aimed to investigate the impact of SC on thrombolysis. Methods: The study period was divided into the pre-SC era'' (January 2006 to July 2010) and SC era'' (August 2010 to July 2013). Demographics, critical times (stroke symptom onset, presentation to the emergency department, neuroimaging, thrombolysis), stroke severity, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared between the two eras. Results: During the study period, 5957 patients with acute ischemic stroke were admitted; of these, 1301 (21.8%) arrived at the emergency department within 3 h of stroke onset and 307 (5.2%) received IV-tPA. The number and frequency of IV-tPA treatments for patients with an onset-to-door time of <3 h increased from the pre-SC era (n = 91, 13.9%) to the SC era (n = 216, 33.3%) (P < 0.001). SC also improved the efficiency of IV-tPA administration; the median door-to-needle time decreased (88 to 51 min, P < 0.001) and the percentage of door-to-needle times <= 60 min increased (14.3% to 71.3%, P < 0.001). The SC era group tended to have more patients with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale <= 2) at discharge (49.5 vs. 39.6%, P = 0.11), with no difference in symptomatic hemorrhage events or in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: The SC protocol increases the percentage of acute ischemic stroke patients receiving IV-tPA and decreases door-to-needle time.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available