Ultra-early intravenous stroke thrombolysis: do all patients benefit similarly?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We previously reported increased benefit and reduced mortality after ultra-early stroke thrombolysis in a single center. We now explored in a large multicenter cohort whether extra benefit of treatment within 90 minutes from symptom onset is uniform across predefined stroke severity subgroups, as compared with later thrombolysis. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of consecutive ischemic stroke patients who received IV thrombolysis in 10 European stroke centers were merged. Logistic regression tested association between treatment delays, as well as excellent 3-month outcome (modified Rankin scale, 0-1), and mortality. The association was tested separately in tertiles of baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. RESULTS: In the whole cohort (n=6856), shorter onset-to-treatment time as a continuous variable was significantly associated with excellent outcome (P<0.001). Every fifth patient had onset-to-treatment time≤90 minutes, and these patients had lower frequency of intracranial hemorrhage. After adjusting for age, sex, admission glucose level, and year of treatment, onset-to-treatment time≤90 minutes was associated with excellent outcome in patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 7 to 12 (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.70; P=0.004), but not in patients with baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale>12 (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.32; P=0.99) and baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 0 to 6 (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.39; P=0.80). In the latter, however, an independent association (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.01; P<0.01) was found when considering modified Rankin scale 0 as outcome (to overcome the possible ceiling effect from spontaneous better prognosis of patients with mild symptoms). Ultra-early treatment was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: IV thrombolysis within 90 minutes is, compared with later thrombolysis, strongly and independently associated with excellent outcome in patients with moderate and mild stroke severity.

Validation of the DRAGON Score in 12 Stroke Centers in Anterior and Posterior Circulation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The DRAGON score predicts functional outcome in the hyperacute phase of intravenous thrombolysis treatment of ischemic stroke patients. We aimed to validate the score in a large multicenter cohort in anterior and posterior circulation. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of consecutive ischemic stroke patients who received intravenous thrombolysis in 12 stroke centers were merged (n=5471). We excluded patients lacking data necessary to calculate the score and patients with missing 3-month modified Rankin scale scores. The final cohort comprised 4519 eligible patients. We assessed the performance of the DRAGON score with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the whole cohort for both good (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2) and miserable (modified Rankin scale score, 5-6) outcomes. RESULTS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (0.82-0.85) for miserable outcome and 0.82 (0.80-0.83) for good outcome. Proportions of patients with good outcome were 96%, 93%, 78%, and 0% for 0 to 1, 2, 3, and 8 to 10 score points, respectively. Proportions of patients with miserable outcome were 0%, 2%, 4%, 89%, and 97% for 0 to 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 to 10 points, respectively. When tested separately for anterior and posterior circulation, there was no difference in performance (P=0.55); areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.84 (0.83-0.86) and 0.82 (0.78-0.87), respectively. No sex-related difference in performance was observed (P=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: The DRAGON score showed very good performance in the large merged cohort in both anterior and posterior circulation strokes. The DRAGON score provides rapid estimation of patient prognosis and supports clinical decision-making in the hyperacute phase of stroke care (eg, when invasive add-on strategies are considered).

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after stroke thrombolysis: comparison of prediction scores.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several prognostic scores have been developed to predict the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) after ischemic stroke thrombolysis. We compared the performance of these scores in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: We merged prospectively collected data of patients with consecutive ischemic stroke who received intravenous thrombolysis in 7 stroke centers. We identified and evaluated 6 scores that can provide an estimate of the risk of sICH in hyperacute settings: MSS (Multicenter Stroke Survey); HAT (Hemorrhage After Thrombolysis); SEDAN (blood sugar, early infarct signs, [hyper]dense cerebral artery sign, age, NIH Stroke Scale); GRASPS (glucose at presentation, race [Asian], age, sex [male], systolic blood pressure at presentation, and severity of stroke at presentation [NIH Stroke Scale]); SITS (Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke); and SPAN (stroke prognostication using age and NIH Stroke Scale)-100 positive index. We included only patients with available variables for all scores. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) and also performed logistic regression and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. RESULTS: The final cohort comprised 3012 eligible patients, of whom 221 (7.3%) had sICH per National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 141 (4.7%) per European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study II, and 86 (2.9%) per Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke criteria. The performance of the scores assessed with AUC-ROC for predicting European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study II sICH was: MSS, 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.68); HAT, 0.65 (0.60-0.70); SEDAN, 0.70 (0.66-0.73); GRASPS, 0.67 (0.62-0.72); SITS, 0.64 (0.59-0.69); and SPAN-100 positive index, 0.56 (0.50-0.61). SEDAN had significantly higher AUC-ROC values compared with all other scores, except for GRASPS where the difference was nonsignificant. SPAN-100 performed significantly worse compared with other scores. The discriminative ranking of the scores was the same for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke definitions, with SEDAN performing best, GRASPS second, and SPAN-100 worst. CONCLUSIONS: SPAN-100 had the worst predictive power, and SEDAN constantly the highest predictive power. However, none of the scores had better than moderate performance.