Impact of evidence-based stroke care on patient outcomes: a multilevel analysis of an international study

Background The uptake of proven stroke treatments varies widely. We aimed to determine the association of evidence‐based processes of care for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and clinical outcome of patients who participated in the HEADPOST (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial), a multicenter cluster crossover trial of lying flat versus sitting up, head positioning in acute stroke. Methods and Results Use of 8 AIS processes of care were considered: reperfusion therapy in eligible patients; acute stroke unit care; antihypertensive, antiplatelet, statin, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation; dysphagia assessment; and physiotherapist review. Hierarchical, mixed, logistic regression models were performed to determine associations with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale scores 0–2) at 90 days, adjusted for patient and hospital variables. Among 9485 patients with AIS, implementation of all processes of care in eligible patients, or “defect‐free” care, was associated with improved outcome (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18–1.65) and better survival (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.62–3.09). Defect‐free stroke care was also significantly associated with excellent outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–1) (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.04–1.43). No hospital characteristic was independently predictive of outcome. Only 1445 (15%) of eligible patients with AIS received all processes of care, with significant regional variations in overall and individual rates. Conclusions Use of evidence‐based care is associated with improved clinical outcome in AIS. Strategies are required to address regional variation in the use of proven AIS treatments

Blood Pressure Variability and Outcome in Acute Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the HeadPoST Study

The Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) is a pragmatic, international, cluster crossover randomized trial of 11,093 patients with acute stroke assigned to a lying-flat (0o) or sitting-up (head elevated ≥30o) position. This post-hoc analysis aimed to determine the association between BPV and outcomes for patients from a wide range of international clinical settings and how the association was modified by randomized head position. BPV was defined according to standard criteria with the key parameter considered the coefficient of variation (CV) of systolic BP (SBP) over 24 hours. Outcome was ordinal 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. The association was analyzed by ordinal, logistic regression, hierarchical, mixed models with fixed intervention (lying-flat vs. sitting-up), and fixed period, random cluster, and random cluster-period, effects. 9,156 (8,324 AIS and 817 ICH; mean age 68.1 years; 39.2% women) were included in the analysis. CV of SBP had a significant linear association with unfavorable shift of mRS at 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.11; P=0.01). There was no heterogeneity of the association by randomized head positioning. In addition, CV of diastolic BP (DBP) (1.08, 1.03-1.12; P=0.001) over 24 hours post stroke, was significantly associated with 3-month poor outcome. The association was more apparent in sitting-up position (1.12, 1.06-1.19) compared with lying-flat position (1.03, 0.98-1.09) (P interaction = 0.005). BPV was associated with adverse stroke outcome, the magnitude of the association was greater with sitting-up head positioning in terms of DBP variability

Low- Versus Standard-Dose Alteplase in Patients on Prior Antiplatelet Therapy: The ENCHANTED Trial (Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many patients receiving thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke are on prior antiplatelet therapy (APT), which may increase symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage risk. In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we report comparative effects of different doses of intravenous alteplase according to prior APT use among participants of the international multicenter ENCHANTED study (Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study). METHODS: Among 3285 alteplase-treated patients (mean age, 66.6 years; 38% women) randomly assigned to low-dose (0.6 mg/kg) or standard-dose (0.9 mg/kg) intravenous alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, 752 (22.9%) reported prior APT use. Primary outcome at 90 days was the combined end point of death or disability (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] scores, 2-6). Other outcomes included mRS scores 3 to 6, ordinal mRS shift, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage by various standard criteria. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in outcome between patients with and without prior APT after adjustment for baseline characteristics and management factors during the first week; defined by mRS scores 2 to 6 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.26; P=0.953), 3 to 6 (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20; P=0.662), or ordinal mRS shift (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.21; P=0.770). Alteplase-treated patients on prior APT had higher symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.00-3.30; P=0.051) according to the safe implementation of thrombolysis in stroke-monitoring study definition. Although not significant (P-trend, 0.053), low-dose alteplase tended to have better outcomes than standard-dose alteplase in those on prior APT compared with those not using APT (mRS scores of 2-6; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.12 versus OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose alteplase may improve outcomes in thrombolysis-treated acute ischemic stroke patients on prior APT, but this requires further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01422616

Intensive blood pressure reduction with intravenous thrombolysis therapy for acute ischaemic stroke (ENCHANTED): an international, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Systolic blood pressure of more than 185 mm Hg is a contraindication to thrombolytic treatment with intravenous alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, but the target systolic blood pressure for optimal outcome is uncertain. We assessed intensive blood pressure lowering compared with guideline-recommended blood pressure lowering in patients treated with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke. METHODS: We did an international, partial-factorial, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial of thrombolysis-eligible patients (age ≥18 years) with acute ischaemic stroke and systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg or more, who were screened at 110 sites in 15 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1, by means of a central, web-based program) within 6 h of stroke onset to receive intensive (target systolic blood pressure 130-140 mm Hg within 1 h) or guideline (target systolic blood pressure <180 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering treatment over 72 h. The primary outcome was functional status at 90 days measured by shift in modified Rankin scale scores, analysed with unadjusted ordinal logistic regression. The key safety outcome was any intracranial haemorrhage. Primary and safety outcome assessments were done in a blinded manner. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01422616. FINDINGS: Between March 3, 2012, and April 30, 2018, 2227 patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups. After exclusion of 31 patients because of missing consent or mistaken or duplicate randomisation, 2196 alteplase-eligible patients with acute ischaemic stroke were included: 1081 in the intensive group and 1115 in the guideline group, with 1466 (67·4%) administered a standard dose among the 2175 actually given intravenous alteplase. Median time from stroke onset to randomisation was 3·3 h (IQR 2·6-4·1). Mean systolic blood pressure over 24 h was 144·3 mm Hg (SD 10·2) in the intensive group and 149·8 mm Hg (12·0) in the guideline group (p<0·0001). Primary outcome data were available for 1072 patients in the intensive group and 1108 in the guideline group. Functional status (mRS score distribution) at 90 days did not differ between groups (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·87-1·17, p=0·8702). Fewer patients in the intensive group (160 [14·8%] of 1081) than in the guideline group (209 [18·7%] of 1115) had any intracranial haemorrhage (OR 0·75, 0·60-0·94, p=0·0137). The number of patients with any serious adverse event did not differ significantly between the intensive group (210 [19·4%] of 1081) and the guideline group (245 [22·0%] of 1115; OR 0·86, 0·70-1·05, p=0·1412). There was no evidence of an interaction of intensive blood pressure lowering with dose (low vs standard) of alteplase with regard to the primary outcome. INTERPRETATION: Although intensive blood pressure lowering is safe, the observed reduction in intracranial haemorrhage did not lead to improved clinical outcome compared with guideline treatment. These results might not support a major shift towards this treatment being applied in those receiving alteplase for mild-to-moderate acute ischaemic stroke. Further research is required to define the underlying mechanisms of benefit and harm resulting from early intensive blood pressure lowering in this patient group

Intensive blood pressure control after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke (ENCHANTED2/MT): a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial

Background The optimum systolic blood pressure after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke is uncertain. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of blood pressure lowering treatment according to more intensive versus less intensive treatment targets in patients with elevated blood pressure after reperfusion with endovascular treatment. Methods We conducted an open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial at 44 tertiary-level hospitals in China. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had persistently elevated systolic blood pressure (≥140 mm Hg for >10 min) following successful reperfusion with endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke from any intracranial large-vessel occlusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1, by a central, web-based program with a minimisation algorithm) to more intensive treatment (systolic blood pressure target Findings Between July 20, 2020, and March 7, 2022, 821 patients were randomly assigned. The trial was stopped after review of the outcome data on June 22, 2022, due to persistent efficacy and safety concerns. 407 participants were assigned to the more intensive treatment group and 409 to the less intensive treatment group, of whom 404 patients in the more intensive treatment group and 406 patients in the less intensive treatment group had primary outcome data available. The likelihood of poor functional outcome was greater in the more intensive treatment group than the less intensive treatment group (common OR 1·37 [95% CI 1·07–1·76]). Compared with the less intensive treatment group, the more intensive treatment group had more early neurological deterioration (common OR 1·53 [95% 1·18–1·97]) and major disability at 90 days (OR 2·07 [95% CI 1·47–2·93]) but there were no significant differences in symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events or mortality between groups. Interpretation Intensive control of systolic blood pressure to lower than 120 mm Hg should be avoided to prevent compromising the functional recovery of patients who have received endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke due to intracranial large-vessel occlusion.</p