Skip to main content

Reasons for exclusion from intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients admitted to the Stroke Unit

Abstract

Intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is the treatment in ischemic stroke, but only the minority of patients receive this medication. The primary objective of this study was to explore the reasons associated with the decision not to offer IV thrombolysis to stroke patients admitted to the Stroke Unit (SU). We conducted a retrospective analysis based on data collected from 876 consecutive stroke patients admitted to the SU <12 h of symptoms onset, treated or not with IV thrombolysis at the discretion of the treating neurologist. Of the 876 patients, 449 were thrombolysed and 427 non-thrombolysed. Stroke onset >4.5 h (p = 0.001) and unknown time of onset (or stroke present on awakening) (p = 0.004) were reasons listed in the current SPC of Actilyse reasons for exclusion even they occurred singly, whereas mild deficit (or rapidly improving symptoms) (p < 0.001), extra-cranial conditions with increased risk of bleeding (p = 0.004), and history of SNC diseases (p = 0.001) only when they occurred in combination. Severe pre-stroke disability (p = 0.003) was extra-SPC reason for exclusion even when it occurred singly, whereas early CT hypodensity (p < 0.001) only when it occurred in combination. After stratification for intra-SPC reasons for exclusion, early CT hypodensity was associated with decision not offer IV thrombolysis in patients with mild deficit (p < 0.001), age >80 years (p < 0.001), stroke onset >4.5 h (p = 0.005), and unknown time of onset (p = 0.037), while severe pre-stroke disability (p = 0.025) and admission under non-stroke specialist neurologist assessment (p = 0.018) in patients with age >80 years. There are often unjustified reasons for exclusion from IV thrombolysis in SU.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Meretoja A, Putaala J, Tatlisumak T et al (2010) Off-label thrombolysis is not associated with poor outcome in patients with stroke. Stroke 41:1450–1458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Karlinski M, Kobayashi A, Mikulik R, Sanak D, Wahlgren N, Czlonkowska A (2012) Intravenous alteplase in ischemic stroke patients not fully adhering to the current drug license in Central and Eastern Europe. Int J Stroke 7:615–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Guillan M, Alonso-Canovas A, Garcia-Caldentey J et al (2012) Off-label intravenous thrombolysis in acute stroke. Eur J Neurol 19:390–394

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cappellari M, Moretto G, Micheletti N et al (2014) Off-label thrombolysis versus full adherence to the current European alteplase license: impact on early clinical outcomes after acute ischemic stroke. J Thromb Thrombolysis 37:549–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Toni D, Mangiafico S, Agostoni E et al (2015) Intravenous thrombolysis and intra-arterial interventions in acute ischemic stroke: Italian Stroke Organisation (ISO)-SPREAD guidelines. Int J Stroke 10:1119–1129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Adams HP Jr, Bendixen BH, Kappelle LJ et al (1993) Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke. Definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST. Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. Stroke 24:35–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C (1991) Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 337:1521–1526

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hoh BL, Chi YY, Waters MF, Mocco J, Barker FG 2nd (2010) Effect of weekend compared with weekday stroke admission on thrombolytic use, in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, hospital charges, and length of stay in the nationwide inpatient sample database, 2002–2007. Stroke 41:2323–2328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ogbu UC, Westert GP, Slobbe LC, Stronks K, Arah OA (2011) A multifaceted look at time of admission and its impact on case-fatality among a cohort of ischaemic stroke patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 82:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Manawadu D, Choyi J, Kalra L (2014) The impact of early specialist management on outcomes of patients with in-hospital stroke. PLoS ONE 9:e104758

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Cappellari.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 266 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cappellari, M., Bosco, M., Forlivesi, S. et al. Reasons for exclusion from intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients admitted to the Stroke Unit. J Thromb Thrombolysis 42, 593–599 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-016-1406-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-016-1406-8

Keywords

  • Thrombolysis
  • Ischemic stroke
  • Reasons for exclusion
  • Off-label
  • Contraindications
  • rt-PA