Value of intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy among patients with tandem lesions and emergent carotid artery stenting: A subgroup analysis of the SWIFT DIRECT trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The value of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in eligible tandem lesion patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) is unknown. We investigated treatment effect heterogeneity of EVT + IVT versus EVT-only in tandem lesion patients. Additional analyses were performed for patients undergoing emergent internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting. METHODS: SWIFT DIRECT randomized IVT-eligible patients to either EVT + IVT or EVT-only. Primary outcome was 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) after the index event. Secondary endpoints were reperfusion success, 24 h intracranial hemorrhage rate, and 90-day all-cause mortality. Interaction models were fitted for all predefined outcomes. RESULTS: Among 408 included patients, 63 (15.4%) had a tandem lesion and 33 (52.4%) received IVT. In patients with tandem lesions, 20 had undergone emergent ICA stenting (EVT + IVT: 9/33, 27.3%; EVT: 11/30, 36.7%). Tandem lesion did not show treatment effect modification of IVT on rates of functional independence (tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 63.6% vs. 46.7%, non-tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 65.6% vs. 58.2%; p for interaction = 0.77). IVT also did not increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage  among tandem lesion patients (tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 34.4% vs. 46.7%, non-tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 33.5% vs. 26.3%; p for interaction = 0.15). No heterogeneity was noted for other endpoints (p for interaction > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: No treatment effect heterogeneity of EVT + IVT versus EVT-only was observed among tandem lesion patients. Administering IVT in patients with anticipated emergent ICA stenting seems safe, and the latter should not be a factor to consider when deciding to administer IVT before EVT.

The Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) global scale-up using a cascading facilitation framework: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Variation in hospital stroke care is problematic. The Quality in Acute Stroke (QASC) Australia trial demonstrated reductions in death and disability through supported implementation of nurse-led, evidence-based protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia (sugar) and swallowing (FeSS Protocols) following stroke. Subsequently, a pre-test/post-test study was conducted in acute stroke wards in 64 hospitals in 17 European countries to evaluate upscale of the FeSS Protocols. Implementation across countries was underpinned by a cascading facilitation framework of multi-stakeholder support involving academic partners and a not-for-profit health organisation, the Angels Initiative (the industry partner), that operates to promote evidence-based treatments in stroke centres. .We report here an a priori qualitative process evaluation undertaken to identify factors that influenced international implementation of the FeSS Protocols using a cascading facilitation framework. METHODS: The sampling frame for interviews was: (1) Executives/Steering Committee members, consisting of academics, the Angels Initiative and senior project team, (2) Angel Team leaders (managers of Angel Consultants), (3) Angel Consultants (responsible for assisting facilitation of FeSS Protocols into multiple hospitals) and (4) Country Co-ordinators (senior stroke nurses with country and hospital-level responsibilities for facilitating the introduction of the FeSS Protocols). A semi-structured interview elicited participant views on the factorsthat influenced engagement of stakeholders with the project and preparation for and implementation of the FeSS Protocol upscale. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively within NVivo. RESULTS: Individual (n = 13) and three group interviews (3 participants in each group) were undertaken. Three main themes with sub-themes were identified that represented key factors influencing upscale: (1) readiness for change (sub-themes: negotiating expectations; intervention feasible and acceptable; shared goal of evidence-based stroke management); (2) roles and relationships (sub-themes: defining and establishing roles; harnessing nurse champions) and (3) managing multiple changes (sub-themes: accommodating and responding to variation; more than clinical change; multi-layered communication framework). CONCLUSION: A cascading facilitation model involving a partnership between evidence producers (academic partners), knowledge brokers (industry partner, Angels Initiative) and evidence adopters (stroke clinicians) overcame multiple challenges involved in international evidence translation. Capacity to manage, negotiate and adapt to multi-level changes and strategic engagement of different stakeholders supported adoption of nurse-initiated stroke protocols within Europe. This model has promise for other large-scale evidence translation programs.