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.

Ultra-Early and Short-Term Tranexamic Acid Treatment in Patients With Good- and Poor-Grade Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The results of the ULTRA trial showed that ultra-early and short-term treatment with tranexamic acid (TXA) does not improve clinical outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Possibly, the lack of a beneficial effect in all patients with aSAH is masked by antagonistic effects of TXA in certain subgroups. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we investigated the effect of TXA on clinical outcome in patients with good-grade and poor-grade aSAH. METHODS: The ULTRA trial was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment. Participants received ultra-early and short-term TXA in addition to usual care or usual care only. This post hoc subgroup analysis included only ULTRA participants with confirmed aSAH and available World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) grade on admission. Patients were categorized into those with good-grade (WFNS 1-3) and poor-grade (WFNS 4-5) aSAH. The primary outcome was clinical outcome assessed by the modified Rankin scale (mRS). Odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs (aORs) with 95% CIs were calculated using ordinal regression analyses. Analyses were performed using the as-treated principle. In all patients with aSAH, no significant effect modification of TXA on clinical outcome was observed for admission WFNS grade (p = 0.10). RESULTS: Of the 812 ULTRA participants, 473 patients had (58%; N = 232 TXA, N = 241 usual care) good-grade and 339 (42%; N = 162 TXA, N = 176 usual care) patients had poor-grade aSAH. In patients with good-grade aSAH, the TXA group had worse clinical outcomes (OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.94, aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.94) compared with the usual care group. In patients with poor-grade aSAH, clinical outcomes were comparable between treatment groups (OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.70-1.55, aOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.56). DISCUSSION: This post hoc subgroup analysis provides another important argument against the use of TXA treatment in patients with aSAH, by showing worse clinical outcomes in patients with good-grade aSAH treated with TXA and no clinical benefit of TXA in patients with poor-grade aSAH, compared with patients treated with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02684812; submission date February 18, 2016, first patient enrollment on July 24, 2013). CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that tranexamic acid, given for <24 hours within the first 24 hours, does not improve the 6-month outcome in good-grade or poor initial-grade aneurysmal SAH.

Tranexamic Acid After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Post-Hoc Analysis of the ULTRA Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The ULTRA-trial showed that ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment after subarachnoid hemorrhage did not improve clinical outcome at six months. An expected proportion of the included patients had non-aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage In this post-hoc study, we will investigate whether ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage improves clinical outcome at six months. METHODS: The ULTRA-trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment, conducted between July 24, 2013 and January 20, 2020. After confirmation of subarachnoid hemorrhage on non-contrast computer tomography, patients were allocated to either ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment with usual care, or usual care only. In this post-hoc analysis, we included all ULTRA-participants with a confirmed aneurysm on CT angiography and/or digital subtraction angiography. The primary endpoint was clinical outcome at six months, assessed by the modified Rankin Scale, dichotomized into good (0-3) and poor (4-6) outcome. RESULTS: Of the 813 ULTRA-trial patients who had an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, 409 (50%) were assigned to the tranexamic acid group and 404 (50%) to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 233 of 405 (58%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 238 of 399 (60%) patients in the control group had a good clinical outcome (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0·92; 95% confidence interval (C.I.) 0·69 to 1·24). None of the secondary outcomes showed significant differences between the treatment groups: excellent clinical outcome (mRS 0-2) aOR 0.76, 95% C.I. 0.57-1.03, all-cause mortality at 30 days aOR 0.91, 95% C.I. 0.65-1.28), all-cause mortality at six months aOR 1.10 (95% C.I. 0.80-1.52). DISCUSSION: Ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment did not improve clinical outcome at six months in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and therefore, cannot be recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02684812; submission date February 18, 2016, first patient enrollment on July 24th, 2013). CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in patients presenting with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Pre- and Interhospital Workflow Times for Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Transferred for Endovasvular Thrombectomy.

Background: Patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke are often initially admitted to a primary stroke center (PSC) and subsequently transferred to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This interhospital transfer delays initiation of EVT. To identify potential workflow improvements, we analyzed pre- and interhospital time metrics for patients with LVO stroke who were transferred from a PSC for EVT. Methods: We used data from the regional emergency medical services and our EVT registry. We included patients with LVO stroke who were transferred from three nearby PSCs for EVT (2014-2021). The time interval between first alarm and arrival at the CSC (call-to-CSC time) and other time metrics were calculated. We analyzed associations between various clinical and workflow-related factors and call-to-CSC time, using multivariable linear regression. Results: We included 198 patients with LVO stroke. Mean age was 70 years (±14.9), median baseline NIHSS was 14 (IQR: 9-18), 136/198 (69%) were treated with intravenous thrombolysis, and 135/198 (68%) underwent EVT. Median call-to-CSC time was 162 min (IQR: 137-190). In 133/155 (86%) cases, the ambulance for transfer to the CSC was dispatched with the highest level of urgency. This was associated with shorter call-to-CSC time (adjusted ß [95% CI]: -27.6 min [-51.2 to -3.9]). No clinical characteristics were associated with call-to-CSC time. Conclusion: In patients transferred from a PSC for EVT, median call-to-CSC time was over 2.5 h. The highest level of urgency for dispatch of ambulances for EVT transfers should be used, as this clearly decreases time to treatment.

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.

Ultra-early tranexamic acid after subarachnoid haemorrhage (ULTRA): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, short-term antifibrinolytic therapy with tranexamic acid has been shown to reduce the risk of rebleeding. However, whether this treatment improves clinical outcome is unclear. We investigated whether ultra-early, short-term treatment with tranexamic acid improves clinical outcome at 6 months. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label trial with masked outcome assessment, adult patients with spontaneous CT-proven subarachnoid haemorrhage in eight treatment centres and 16 referring hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to treatment with tranexamic acid in addition to care as usual (tranexamic acid group) or care as usual only (control group). Tranexamic acid was started immediately after diagnosis in the presenting hospital (1 g bolus, followed by continuous infusion of 1 g every 8 h, terminated immediately before aneurysm treatment, or 24 h after start of the medication, whichever came first). The primary endpoint was clinical outcome at 6 months, assessed by the modified Rankin Scale, dichotomised into a good (0-3) or poor (4-6) clinical outcome. Both primary and safety analyses were according to intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02684812. FINDINGS: Between July 24, 2013, and July 29, 2019, we enrolled 955 patients; 480 patients were randomly assigned to tranexamic acid and 475 patients to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, good clinical outcome was observed in 287 (60%) of 475 patients in the tranexamic acid group, and 300 (64%) of 470 patients in the control group (treatment centre adjusted odds ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·66-1·12). Rebleeding after randomisation and before aneurysm treatment occurred in 49 (10%) patients in the tranexamic acid and in 66 (14%) patients in the control group (odds ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·48-1·04). Other serious adverse events were comparable between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with CT-proven subarachnoid haemorrhage, presumably caused by a ruptured aneurysm, ultra-early, short-term tranexamic acid treatment did not improve clinical outcome at 6 months, as measured by the modified Rankin Scale. FUNDING: Fonds NutsOhra.