Clinical outcomes of acute stroke thrombolysis in neurologist and non-neurologist centres – A comparative study in Malaysia

ABSTRACT

@#Acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is a devastating disease and one of the leading causes of disabilities worldwide. From 2010 to 2014, the incidence of stroke in Malaysia had increased from 65 to 187 per 100,000 population.1 Thrombolytic therapy with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) within 4.5 hours of symptom onset has been shown to be an effective treatment for AIS. Patients who receive thrombolysis are 30 percent more likely to achieve excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin scale of 0 to 1) at 3 months compared to placebo.2 Unfortunately, the delivery of stroke thrombolysis service in Malaysia is often limited by the availability of neurologists. To date, the ratio of neurologists capable of performing thrombolysis serving in public hospitals to the Malaysian population is 11.4 million.3 To counteract this disparity and to cope with the increasing stroke burden in Malaysia, there has been an advocacy for greater involvement of non-neurologists, i.e., general and emergency physicians in performing of stroke thrombolysis.4 Emerging data based on short term outcomes appear to support this notion. Based on a 2015 single center study on 49 AIS patients in Australia, A. Lee et al., reported that there was no significant difference in door to needle time, rates of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (SICH), and mortality between patients thrombolysed by neurologists versus stroke physicians.5 In 2016, a larger multicentre study in Thailand reported that patients thrombolysed in hospitals without neurologists had lower National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores at discharge and lower inpatient mortality rate compared to patients treated in neurologist hospitals.6 Based on these short term outcomes, both studies suggest that nonneurologists are able to thrombolyse AIS patients safely and effectively. Data comparing long term functional outcomes in thrombolysis prescribed by neurologists and nonneurologists are still very limited. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the 3-month functional outcomes of thrombolytic therapy between hospitals with and without on-site neurologists. The secondary objective was to assess the doorto-needle time and complication rates of thrombolysis service in both hospitals