Effect of Alteplase Use on Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of the Initiation of Anticoagulation After Cardioembolic Stroke Study.

Background Intravenous alteplase improves outcome after acute ischemic stroke without a benefit in 90-day mortality. There are limited data on whether alteplase is associated with reduced mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)-related ischemic stroke whose mortality rate is relatively high. We sought to determine the association of alteplase with hemorrhagic transformation and mortality in patients with AF. Methods and Results We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke between 2015 and 2018 diagnosed with AF included in the IAC (Initiation of Anticoagulation After Cardioembolic Stroke) study, which pooled data from stroke registries at 8 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States. For our primary analysis, we included patients who did not undergo mechanical thrombectomy (MT), and secondary analyses included patients who underwent MT. We used binary logistic regression to determine whether alteplase use was associated with risk of hemorrhagic transformation and 90-day mortality. There were 1889 patients (90.6%) who had 90-day follow-up data available for analyses and were included; 1367 patients (72.4%) did not receive MT, and 522 patients (27.6%) received MT. In our primary analyses we found that alteplase use was independently associated with an increased risk for hemorrhagic transformation (odds ratio [OR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.57-3.17) but reduced risk of 90-day mortality (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87). Among patients undergoing MT, alteplase use was not associated with a significant reduction in 90-day mortality (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.04). Conclusions Alteplase reduced 90-day mortality of patients with acute ischemic stroke with AF not undergoing MT. Further study is required to assess the efficacy of alteplase in patients with AF undergoing MT.

Ischaemic stroke on anticoagulation therapy and early recurrence in acute cardioembolic stroke: the IAC study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A subset of ischaemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have ischaemic stroke despite anticoagulation. We sought to determine the association between prestroke anticoagulant therapy and recurrent ischaemic events and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH). METHODS: We included consecutive patients with acute ischaemic stroke and AF from the Initiation of Anticoagulation after Cardioembolic stroke (IAC) study from eight comprehensive stroke centres in the USA. We compared recurrent ischaemic events and delayed sICH risk using adjusted Cox regression analyses between patients who were prescribed anticoagulation (ACp) versus patients who were naïve to anticoagulation therapy prior to the ischaemic stroke (anticoagulation naïve). RESULTS: Among 2084 patients in IAC, 1518 had prior anticoagulation status recorded and were followed for 90 days. In adjusted Cox hazard models, ACp was associated with some evidence of a higher risk higher risk of 90-day recurrent ischaemic events only in the fully adjusted model (adjusted HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.28, p=0.058) but not increased risk of 90-day sICH (adjusted HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.51, p=0.862). In addition, switching anticoagulation class was not associated with reduced risk of recurrent ischaemic events (adjusted HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.33, p=0.136) nor sICH (adjusted HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 7.50, p=0.641). CONCLUSION: AF patients with ischaemic stroke despite anticoagulation may have higher recurrent ischaemic event risk compared with anticoagulation-naïve patients. This suggests differing underlying pathomechanisms requiring different stroke prevention measures and identifying these mechanisms may improve secondary prevention strategies.

Total Transfer Time for Ground vs. Air Transport for Interhospital and Scene Transfers of Acute Stroke Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Stroke patients are frequently transported to a comprehensive stroke center for treatment, either from a regional hospital via interhospital transfer or from the field via direct-from-scene transfer, by air or ground transportation. We sought to determine whether air or ground transport was faster in both transfer circumstances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of patients transferred to a single comprehensive stroke center for stroke treatment was conducted. EMS and medical records were used to evaluate the time and distance of transfer and functional outcome. RESULTS: Of the 205 transfers, 47 were interhospital transfers by air (22.9%), 68 were interhospital transfers by ground (33.2%), 40 were scene transfers by air (19.5%), and 50 were scene transfers by ground (24.4%). Ground transfers had shorter alarm to EMS departure times (30 min. vs 40 min.; p<0.0001). Air transfers had shorter EMS departure to arrival times when normalized by transfer distance indicating a faster travel velocity. Interhospital transfers by air were predicted to be faster than ground over 40 miles, and scene transfers by air were predicted to be faster than ground over 28 miles. Transfer mode had no significant effect on functional outcome when controlling for tPA, thrombectomy, and NIH Stroke Scale in this small study. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer efficiency for stroke patients depends on logistics prior to EMS arrival as well as the speed of travel. While air transport clearly results in faster travel velocity, total interhospital transfer times are faster for air transportation only when traveling more than 40 miles.

Anticoagulation Type and Early Recurrence in Cardioembolic Stroke: The IAC Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation, treatment with low molecular weight heparin increases early hemorrhagic risk without reducing early recurrence, and there is limited data comparing warfarin to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy. We aim to compare the effects of the treatments above on the risk of 90-day recurrent ischemic events and delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation from the IAC (Initiation of Anticoagulation after Cardioembolic) stroke study pooling data from stroke registries of 8 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States. We compared recurrent ischemic events and delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage between each of the following groups in separate Cox-regression analyses: (1) DOAC versus warfarin and (2) bridging with heparin/low molecular weight heparin versus no bridging, adjusting for pertinent confounders to test these associations. RESULTS: We identified 1289 patients who met the bridging versus no bridging analysis inclusion criteria and 1251 patients who met the DOAC versus warfarin analysis inclusion criteria. In adjusted Cox-regression models, bridging (versus no bridging) treatment was associated with a high risk of delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 2.74 [95% CI, 1.01-7.42]) but a similar rate of recurrent ischemic events (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.63-2.40]). Furthermore, DOAC (versus warfarin) treatment was associated with a lower risk of recurrent ischemic events (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.29-0.87]) but not delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.22-1.48]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation would benefit from the initiation of a DOAC without bridging therapy. Due to our study limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution pending confirmation from large prospective studies.

Anticoagulation Timing in Cardioembolic Stroke and Recurrent Event Risk.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend initiating anticoagulation within 4 to 14 days after cardioembolic stroke. Data supporting this did not account for key factors potentially affecting the decision to initiate anticoagulation, such as infarct size, hemorrhagic transformation, or high-risk features on echocardiography. METHODS: We pooled data from stroke registries of 8 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States. We included consecutive patients admitted with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation. The primary predictor was timing of initiating anticoagulation (0-3 days, 4-14 days, or >14 days), and outcomes were recurrent stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and major extracranial hemorrhage (ECH) within 90 days. RESULTS: Among 2,084 patients, 1,289 met the inclusion criteria. The combined endpoint occurred in 10.1% (n = 130) subjects (87 ischemic events, 20 sICH, and 29 ECH). Overall, there was no significant difference in the composite endpoint between the 3 groups (0-3 days: 10.3%, 64/617; 4-14 days: 9.7%, 52/535; >14 days: 10.2%, 14/137; p = 0.933). In adjusted models, patients started on anticoagulation between 4 and 14 days did not have a lower rate of sICH (vs 0-3 days; odds ratio [OR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-4.43), nor did they have a lower rate of recurrent ischemic events (vs >14 days; OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.36-1.62, p = 0.482). INTERPRETATION: In this multicenter real-world cohort, the recommended (4-14 days) time frame to start oral anticoagulation was not associated with reduced ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes. Randomized trials are required to determine the optimal timing of anticoagulation initiation. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:807-816.

Implementation of a pilot electronic stroke outcome reporting system for emergency care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) providers and clinicians find that feedback on acute stroke patients is rewarding, valuable to professional development, and helpful for practice improvement. However, feedback is rarely provided, particularly for patients with stroke. Here we describe the implementation of an electronic stroke outcome reporting tool for providing feedback to ED providers. METHODS: We sought to evaluate the implementation of an electronic stroke outcome reporting tool at 3 Nashville hospitals. ED staff and providers voluntarily enrolled to receive de-identified reports of clinical (e.g., survival) and operational (e.g., timeliness) outcomes of patients with acute ischemic stroke and were offered free continuing education (CE) credits for following up on patients. We evaluated the implementation of this system through a descriptive evaluation of the feasibility, use of the system and CE, and perceived usefulness of the reports. RESULTS: We enrolled 232 ED providers, including 107 (46%) nurses and 57 (25%) attending physicians and transmitted 55 stroke outcome reports. Reports took 30-60 min to compile and were viewed by a mean of 2.6 (SD 1.5) registered providers; 97.1% found the reports useful and 36.2% reported likelihood to change practice. Continuing education credits were initiated or claimed by 22 providers. CONCLUSIONS: An electronic stroke outcome reporting tool was used and liked by ED staff and providers but the time to compile the reports is the major challenge to scalability. Future research should address the effectiveness of this reporting tool as a source of provider education and its impact on clinical and operational outcomes.