The SITS-UTMOST: a registry-based prospective study in Europe investigating the impact of regulatory approval of intravenous Actilyse in the extended time window (3–4.5 h) in acute ischaemic stroke

Introduction: The SITS-UTMOST (Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Upper Time window Monitoring Study) was a registry-based prospective study of intravenous alteplase used in the extended time window (3–4.5 h) in acute ischaemic stroke to evaluate the impact of the approval of the extended time window on routine clinical practice. Patients and methods: Inclusion of at least 1000 patients treated within 3–4.5 h according to the licensed criteria and actively registered in the SITS-International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry was planned. Prospective data collection started 2 May 2012 and ended 2 November 2014. A historical cohort was identified for 2 years preceding May 2012. Clinical management and outcome were contrasted between patients treated within 3 h versus 3–4.5 h in the prospective cohort and between historical and prospective cohorts for the 3 h time window. Outcomes were functional independency (modified Rankin scale, mRS) 0–2, favourable outcome (mRS 0–1), and death at 3 months and symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (SICH) per SITS. Results: 4157 patients from 81 centres in 12 EU countries were entered prospectively (N ¼ 1118 in the 3–4.5 h, N ¼ 3039 in the 0–3 h time window) and 3454 retrospective patients in the 0–3 h time window who met the marketing approval conditions. In the prospective cohort, median arrival to treatment time was longer in the 3–4.5 h than 3 h window (79 vs. 55 min). Within the 3 h time window, treatment delays were shorter for prospective than historical patients (55 vs. 63). There was no significant difference between the 3–4.5 h versus 3 h prospective cohort with regard to percentage of reported SICH (1.6 vs. 1.7), death (11.6 vs. 11.1), functional independency (66 vs. 65) at 3 months or favourable outcome (51 vs. 50). Discussion: Main weakness is the observational design of the study. Conclusion: This study neither identified negative impact on treatment delay, nor on outcome, following extension of the approved time window to 4.5 h for use of alteplase in stroke

Alteplase for acute ischemic stroke in patients aged >80 years: pooled analyses of individual patient data

Background/Purpose: Expert guidelines specify no upper age limit for alteplase for thrombolysis of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) but, until recently, European regulatory criteria restricted its use to patients aged 18 to 80 years. We performed pooled analyses of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and registry data to evaluate the benefit-risk profile of alteplase for AIS among patients aged >80 years to support a regulatory application to lift the upper age restriction. Methods: Individual patient data were evaluated from 7 randomized trials of alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) versus placebo or open control for AIS, and the European SITS-UTMOST registry database. Clinical outcomes, including good functional outcome (score 0–1, modified Rankin Scale day 90 or Oxford Handicap Score day 180), were evaluated in the full RCT and registry populations, and specified age-based subgroups (≤80 or >80 years) who met existing European regulatory criteria for alteplase, excluding upper age restriction. Results: Regardless of treatment allocation, 90-day mortality was lower among RCT patients aged ≤80 versus >80 years who otherwise met existing European regulatory criteria (246/2405 [10.2%] versus 307/1028 [29.9%], respectively). Among patients aged >80 years, alteplase versus placebo was associated with a higher proportion of good stroke outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–1; 99/518 [19.1%] versus 67/510 [13.1%]; P=0.0109) and similar 90-day mortality (153/518 [29.5%] versus 154/510 [30.2%]; P=0.8382). The odds of a good stroke outcome following alteplase allocation in the full RCT population were independent of age (P=0.7383). Good stroke outcome was reported for almost half (4821/11 169 [43.2%]) of the patients who received alteplase in routine practice. Outcomes in routine practice supported those achieved in RCTs. Conclusions: Alteplase for AIS has a positive benefit-risk profile among patients aged >80 years when administered according to other regulatory criteria. Alteplase for AIS should be evaluated on an individual benefit-risk basis

The Strategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction (STREAM) study

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as the preferred therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) provided it is performed in a timely fashion at an expert 24/7 facility. Fibrinolysis is a well-accepted alternative, especially in patients presenting early after symptom onset. The STREAM study will provide novel information on whether prompt fibrinolysis at first medical contact, followed by timely catheterization or rescue coronary intervention in STEMI patients presenting within 3 hours of symptom onset, represents an appropriate alternative strategy to primary PCI. METHODS: Acute STEMI patients presenting early after symptom onset are eligible if PCI is not feasible within 60 minutes of first medical contact. This is an open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel, comparative, international multicenter trial. Patients are randomized to fibrinolysis combined with enoxaparin, clopidogrel, and aspirin, and cardiac catheterization within 6 to 24 hours or rescue coronary intervention if reperfusion fails within 90 minutes of fibrinolysis versus PCI performed according to local guidelines. Composite efficacy end points at 30 days include death, shock, heart failure, and reinfarction. Safety end points include ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and major nonintracranial bleeding. Follow-up is extended to 1 year and includes all-cause mortality. DISCUSSION: Continuing delays in achieving timely PCI remain a difficult issue. Many patients fail to achieve the desired reperfusion times of 90 to 120 minutes after first medical contact. The STREAM results will provide useful additional data on which to base informed therapeutic decision

Efficacy and safety of unfractionated heparin versus enoxaparin: a pooled analysis of ASSENT-3 and -3 PLUS data

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic therapy to accompany tenecteplase in cases of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. We undertook a prespecified pooled analysis of data from the ASSENT-3 and ASSENT-3 PLUS trials. METHODS: We created a combined database of the 2040 and 818 patients who received enoxaparin in ASSENT-3 and ASSENT-3 PLUS, respectively, and compared them with the 2038 and 821 patients who received unfractionated heparin. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point, a composite of 30-day mortality, reinfarction or refractory ischemia, was 16.0% with enoxaparin versus 12.2% with unfractionated heparin (p < 0.001); the efficacy plus safety (intracranial hemorrhage [ICH] or major systemic bleeding) end point, 18.0% versus 15.0% (p = 0.003). The 1049 patients urgently revascularized had greater benefit from enoxaparin (15.4% v. 10.1%, p = 0.013), yet the excess in major systemic bleeding evident with enoxaparin (3.3% v. 2.4%, p = 0.01) was largely confined to the 3492 patients without or before revascularization. Although ICH rates in the groups were similar (1.3% v. 0.9%, p = 0.26), an excess of ICH occurred among those administered enoxaparin during the ASSENT-3 PLUS trial (6.7% v. 0.8%, p = 0.013), especially among women over 75 years of age. INTERPRETATION: These data demonstrated the benefit of enoxaparin used in conjunction with tenecteplase, but raised caution about its prehospital use to treat STEMI in elderly women

Relationship between community hospital versus pre-hospital location of randomisation and clinical outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: insights from the Stream study

AIMS: The STREAM study randomly assigned ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients to receive a pharmacoinvasive versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention reperfusion strategy. We assessed whether there was an association between outcomes based on randomisation at a community hospital versus a prehospital location. METHODS/RESULTS: Community hospital patients (358/1866 (19.2%)) were compared to prehospital patients and their outcomes categorised into pharmacoinvasive according to their treatment assignment. Compared to prehospital patients, community hospital patients had more diabetes (17.8% vs. 11.5%, P=0.001), higher Killip Class >1 (9.4% vs. 5.0%, P=0.002) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk scores ⩾5 (18.2% vs. 12.4%, P=0.005). The 30-day primary endpoint (death, shock, congestive heart failure and re-infarction) for community hospital patients was 14.9% versus 13.2% for prehospital patients ( P=0.403). Community hospital pharmacoinvasive patients tended to receive less rescue (35.1% vs. 42.8%, P=0.062); when deployed their rescue was delayed 43 minutes. Community hospital patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention experienced a delay of 31 minutes versus prehospital patients. Pharmacoinvasive patients receiving scheduled angiography from a community hospital and prehospital patients had comparable times to angiography (17.7 vs. 18.7 hours) and low event rates (6.2% vs. 8.0%). Although the interaction between randomisation location and treatment received on the primary endpoint was not significant ( Pinteraction=0.065) those pharmacoinvasive patients requiring rescue from community hospitals had worse outcomes than prehospital rescue patients (odds ratio 2.28, 95% confidence interval 1.16-4.49). CONCLUSION: Within STREAM, STEMI patients randomly assigned at community hospitals had a higher baseline risk but similar outcomes compared to those studied prehospital patients irrespective of successful pharmacoinvasive therapy or primary percutaneous coronary intervention. However, worse outcomes in the pharmacoinvasive patients requiring rescue in community hospitals emphasises their need for immediate transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital.status: publishe

Thrombolysis during resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Background: Approximately 70% of persons who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have underlying acute myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism. Therefore, thrombolysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may improve survival. Methods: In a double-blind, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive tenecteplase or placebo during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Adjunctive heparin or aspirin was not used. The primary end point was 30-day survival; the secondary end points were hospital admission, return of spontaneous circulation, 24-hour survival, survival to hospital discharge, and neurologic outcome. Results: After blinded review of data from the first 443 patients, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of enrollment of asystolic patients because of low survival, and the protocol was amended. Subsequently, the trial was terminated prematurely for futility after enrolling a total of 1050 patients. Tenecteplase was administered to 525 patients and placebo to 525 patients; the two treatment groups had similar clinical profiles. We did not detect any significant differences between tenecteplase and placebo in the primary end point of 30-day survival (14.7% vs. 17.0%; P=0.36; relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.15) or in the secondary end points of hospital admission (53.5% vs. 55.0%, P=0.67), return of spontaneous circulation (55.0% vs. 54.6%, P=0.96), 24-hour survival (30.6% vs. 33.3%, P=0.39), survival to hospital discharge (15.1% vs. 17.5%, P=0.33), or neurologic outcome (P=0.69). There were more intracranial hemorrhages in the tenecteplase group. Conclusions: When tenecteplase was used without adjunctive antithrombotic therapy during advanced life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we did not detect an improvement in outcome, in comparison with placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00157261.)