ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Current standard practice guidelines recommend ICU admission for ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA). More recently, the trend in stroke care is to broaden eligibility for IV thrombolysis. Two examples are a more liberal inclusion criteria known as SMART criteria (sIV-tPA), and the transfer of patients to comprehensive stroke centers (CSC). The present study characterizes ICU interventions in these patients. Understanding which stroke patients that require ICU-level care may allow for placement of patients in the appropriate level of care at hospital admission. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive transfer and nontransfer sIV-tPA-treated patients admitted to the ICU at a CSC. We evaluated the frequency, timing, and nature of ICU interventions. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty one patients were treated with sIV-tPA and 42% required ICU interventions during ICU admission. Of patients requiring ICU interventions, 98% had an ICU intervention performed in triage, prior to admission. National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score only had a moderate association to requirement of ICU interventions. Neither transferring patients to a CSC nor the number of standard IV-tPA contraindications increased ICU interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Liberalized IV-tPA administration did not increase ICU interventions. Nearly all patients that required ICU interventions declared this need in triage, prior to ICU admission. This timing of ICU intervention use during triage is highly sensitive for whether a patient will require ongoing ICU-level care during hospital admission. Identifying ICU intervention use in triage may allow for more effective placement of post-IV-tPA patients in the appropriate inpatient care setting, leading to better utilization of scarce ICU resources.
Subject(s)
Brain Ischemia/drug therapy , Fibrinolytic Agents/administration & dosage , Intensive Care Units , Patient Admission , Stroke/drug therapy , Thrombolytic Therapy/methods , Tissue Plasminogen Activator/administration & dosage , Triage , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brain Ischemia/diagnosis , Clinical Decision-Making , Databases, Factual , Female , Fibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Intensive Care Units/standards , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/standards , Patient Selection , Patient Transfer , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies , Stroke/diagnosis , Thrombolytic Therapy/adverse effects , Thrombolytic Therapy/standards , Time Factors , Tissue Plasminogen Activator/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Triage/standardsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Common intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV rt-PA) exclusion criteria may substantially limit the use of thrombolysis. Preliminary data have shown that the SMART (Simplified Management of Acute stroke using Revised Treatment) criteria greatly expand patient eligibility by reducing thrombolysis exclusions, but they have not been assessed on a large scale. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of general adoption of SMART thrombolysis criteria to a large regional stroke network. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who received IV thrombolysis within a regional stroke network was performed. Patients were divided into those receiving thrombolysis locally versus at an outside hospital. The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale score (≤1) at discharge and the main safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rate. RESULTS: There were 539 consecutive patients, and 50.5% received thrombolysis at an outside facility. Ninety percent of the patients possessed common conventional IV rt-PA contraindications. There were no significant differences between local and network treated patients in favorable outcome (45.4% versus 37.4%; odds ratio [OR], .72; P > .09), mortality (9% versus 14%; OR, 1.6; P > .07), or sICH rate (2.6% versus 5.1%; OR, 2.0; P = .13). Multivariate analysis showed no association between receiving IV rt-PA at an outlying spoke hospital and higher rate of sICH or worse outcome at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Generalized application of SMART criteria is safe and effective. Widespread application of these criteria could substantially increase the proportion of patients who might qualify for treatment.
