Safety and efficacy of active blood-pressure reduction to the recommended thresholds for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke in the Netherlands (TRUTH): a prospective, observational, cluster-based, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis is contraindicated in patients with ischaemic stroke with blood pressure higher than 185/110 mm Hg. Prevailing guidelines recommend to actively lower blood pressure with intravenous antihypertensive agents to allow for thrombolysis; however, there is no robust evidence for this strategy. Because rapid declines in blood pressure can also adversely affect clinical outcomes, several Dutch stroke centres use a conservative strategy that does not involve the reduction of blood pressure. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of both strategies. METHODS: Thrombolysis and Uncontrolled Hypertension (TRUTH) was a prospective, observational, cluster-based, parallel-group study conducted across 37 stroke centres in the Netherlands. Participating centres had to strictly adhere to an active blood-pressure-lowering strategy or to a non-lowering strategy. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) with ischaemic stroke who had blood pressure higher than 185/110 mm Hg but were otherwise eligible for intravenous thrombolysis. The primary outcome was functional status at 90 days, measured using the modified Rankin Scale and assessed through telephone interviews by trained research nurses. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, the proportion of patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis, and door-to-needle time. All ordinal logistic regression analyses were adjusted for age, sex, stroke severity, endovascular thrombectomy, and baseline imbalances as fixed-effect variables and centre as a random-effect variable to account for the clustered design. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle, whereby all patients were analysed according to the treatment strategy of the participating centre at which they were treated. FINDINGS: Recruitment began on Jan 1, 2015, and was prematurely halted because of a declining inclusion rate and insufficient funding on Jan 5, 2022. Between these dates, we recruited 853 patients from 27 centres that followed an active blood-pressure-lowering strategy and 199 patients from ten centres that followed a non-lowering strategy. Baseline characteristics of participants from the two groups were similar. The 90-day mRS score was missing for 15 patients. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a shift towards a worse 90-day functional outcome was 1·27 (95% CI 0·96-1·68) for active blood-pressure reduction compared with no active blood-pressure reduction. 798 (94%) of 853 patients in the active blood-pressure-lowering group were treated with intravenous thrombolysis, with a median door-to-needle time of 35 min (IQR 25-52), compared with 104 (52%) of 199 patients treated in the non-lowering group with a median time of 47 min (29-78). 42 (5%) of 852 patients in the active blood-pressure-lowering group had a symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage compared with six (3%) of 199 of those in the non-lowering group (aOR 1·28 [95% CI 0·62-2·62]). INTERPRETATION: Insufficient evidence was available to establish a difference between an active blood-pressure-lowering strategy-in which antihypertensive agents were administered to reduce blood pressure below 185/110 mm Hg-and a non-lowering strategy for the functional outcomes of patients with ischaemic stroke, despite higher intravenous thrombolysis rates and shorter door-to-needle times among those in the active blood-pressure-lowering group. Randomised controlled trials are needed to inform the use of an active blood-pressure-lowering strategy. FUNDING: Fonds NutsOhra.

Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with one standard dose (2 g/kg) of intravenous immunoglobulin is insufficient in a proportion of patients with severe Guillain-Barré syndrome. Worldwide, around 25% of patients severely affected with the syndrome are given a second intravenous immunoglobulin dose (SID), although it has not been proven effective. We aimed to investigate whether a SID is effective in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a predicted poor outcome. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SID-GBS), we included patients (≥12 years) with Guillain-Barré syndrome admitted to one of 59 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were included on the first day of standard intravenous immunoglobulin treatment (2 g/kg over 5 days). Only patients with a poor prognosis (score of ≥6) according to the modified Erasmus Guillain-Barré syndrome Outcome Score were randomly assigned, via block randomisation stratified by centre, to SID (2 g/kg over 5 days) or to placebo, 7-9 days after inclusion. Patients, outcome adjudicators, monitors, and the steering committee were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score 4 weeks after inclusion. All patients in whom allocated trial medication was started were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR 2224/NL2107. FINDINGS: Between Feb 16, 2010, and June 5, 2018, 327 of 339 patients assessed for eligibility were included. 112 had a poor prognosis. Of those, 93 patients with a poor prognosis were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 (53%) received SID and 44 (47%) received placebo. The adjusted common odds ratio for improvement on the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score at 4 weeks was 1·4 (95% CI 0·6-3·3; p=0·45). Patients given SID had more serious adverse events (35% vs 16% in the first 30 days), including thromboembolic events, than those in the placebo group. Four patients died in the intervention group (13-24 weeks after randomisation). INTERPRETATION: Our study does not provide evidence that patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a poor prognosis benefit from a second intravenous immunoglobulin course; moreover, it entails a risk of serious adverse events. Therefore, a second intravenous immunoglobulin course should not be considered for treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome because of a poor prognosis. The results indicate the need for treatment trials with other immune modulators in patients severely affected by Guillain-Barré syndrome. FUNDING: Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds and Sanquin Plasma Products.

Analysis of different treatment modalities of tethered cord syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Although MRI has improved the diagnosis of tethered cord, many controversies still exist in the treatment of tethered cord syndrome (TCS). Especially the indications for and timing of surgical release have remained topics of discussion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed a group of 41 spina bifida occulta (SBO) patients with a tethered cord to evaluate the results of treatment. Patients were divided into four groups. Twelve asymptomatic tethered cord patients underwent prophylactic surgery (group 1). Ten patients were operated upon because of progressive symptoms (group 2). In the third group 9 patients were treated conservatively at first, but underwent surgery after further progression of symptoms. The 10 patients in group 4 were treated conservatively. RESULTS: The course of symptoms was analysed in the separate groups. Patients in group 1 remained stable during the mean follow-up of 5.7 years. Neurological symptoms appeared to improve most after early surgery (group 2), but progression of symptoms continued in spite of surgical release.