Risk factors for lobar and non-lobar intracerebral hemorrhage in patients with vascular disease

Introduction Lobar and non-lobar non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are presumably caused by different types of small vessel diseases. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for ICH according to location. Methods In two large prospective studies, SMART (n = 9088) and ESPRIT (n = 2625), including patients with manifest cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or peripheral artery disease or with vascular risk factors, we investigated potential risk factors for ICH during follow-up according to lobar or non-lobar location by Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results During 65,156 patient years of follow up 19 patients had lobar ICH (incidence rate 29, 95% CI 19-42 per 100,000 person-years) and 24 non-lobar ICH (incidence rate 37, 95% CI 26-51 per 100,000 person-years). Age significantly increased the risk of lobar ICH (HR per 10 years increase 1.90; 95% CI 1.17-3.10) in the multivariable analysis, but not of non-lobar hemorrhage. Anticoagulant medication (HR 3.49; 95% CI 1.20-10.2) and male sex (HR 3.79; 95% CI 1.13-12.8) increased the risk of non-lobar but not lobar ICH. Conclusion This study shows an elevated risk of future ICH in patients with manifestations of, or risk factors for, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or peripheral artery disease. Our data suggest that risk factors for ICH vary according to location, supporting the hypothesis of a differential pathophysiology of lobar and non-lobar ICH

Association between i.v. thrombolysis volume and door-to-needle times in acute ischemic stroke

Centralization of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke in high-volume centers is believed to improve the door-to-needle times (DNT), but limited data support this assumption. We examined the association between DNT and IVT volume in a large Dutch province. We identified consecutive patients treated with IVT between January 2009 and 2013. Based on annualized IVT volume, hospitals were categorized as low-volume (≤ 24), medium-volume (25-49) or high-volume (≥ 50). In logistic regression analysis, low-volume hospitals were used as reference category. Of 17,332 stroke patients from 11 participating hospitals, 1962 received IVT (11.3 %). We excluded 140 patients because of unknown DNT (n = 86) or in-hospital stroke (n = 54). There were two low-volume (total 101 patients), five medium-volume (747 patients) and four high-volume hospitals (974 patients). Median DNT was shorter in high-volume hospitals (30 min) than in medium-volume (42 min, p < 0.001) and low-volume hospitals (38 min, p < 0.001). Patients admitted to high-volume hospitals had a higher chance of DNT < 30 min (adjusted OR 3.13, 95 % CI 1.70-5.75), lower risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (adjusted OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.16-0.92), and a lower mortality risk (adjusted OR 0.45, 95 % CI 0.21-1.01), compared to low-volume centers. There was no difference in DNT between low- and medium-volume hospitals. Onset-to-needle times (ONT) did not differ between the groups. Hospitals in this Dutch province generally achieved short DNTs. Despite this overall good performance, higher IVT volumes were associated with shorter DNTs and lower complication risks. The ONT was not associated with IVT volum

Prevention With Low-Dose Aspirin Plus Dipyridamole in Patients With Disabling Stroke

Background and Purpose-The combination of low-dose aspirin and dipyridamole is more effective than aspirin alone in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events in patients with a recent transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. It is unknown whether this also applies to patients with a disabling stroke. Methods-We reanalyzed the data of 5700 patients from ESPRIT and ESPS-2 to study the effect of aspirin and dipyridamole according to modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at baseline. Primary outcome was vascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death). We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the treatment effect across mRS strata at baseline, and we tested for interactions with treatment. Results-In total, 426 patients (7.5%) had mRS score of 4 or 5 at baseline. The risk of an outcome event increased with mRS score. The relative risk associated with the combination of aspirin and dipyridamole compared to aspirin alone in patients with mRS score 0 to 5 was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The relative risk according to mRS subcategory score 0 to 4 at baseline varied between 0.73 and 0.96 for vascular events and between 0.62 and 0.96 for stroke. The number of patients with mRS score 5 was too small for reliable estimates, but the data suggest a beneficial effect. There was no evidence of interaction between treatment effect and mRS score at baseline. Conclusion-The beneficial effect of the combination of low-dose aspirin and dipyridamole was present in all subcategories of the mRS score. (Stroke. 2010; 41: 2684-2686.

Pre- and Interhospital Workflow Times for Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Transferred for Endovasvular Thrombectomy

Background: Patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke are often initially admitted to a primary stroke center (PSC) and subsequently transferred to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This interhospital transfer delays initiation of EVT. To identify potential workflow improvements, we analyzed pre- and interhospital time metrics for patients with LVO stroke who were transferred from a PSC for EVT. Methods: We used data from the regional emergency medical services and our EVT registry. We included patients with LVO stroke who were transferred from three nearby PSCs for EVT (2014–2021). The time interval between first alarm and arrival at the CSC (call-to-CSC time) and other time metrics were calculated. We analyzed associations between various clinical and workflow-related factors and call-to-CSC time, using multivariable linear regression. Results: We included 198 patients with LVO stroke. Mean age was 70 years (±14.9), median baseline NIHSS was 14 (IQR: 9–18), 136/198 (69%) were treated with intravenous thrombolysis, and 135/198 (68%) underwent EVT. Median call-to-CSC time was 162 min (IQR: 137–190). In 133/155 (86%) cases, the ambulance for transfer to the CSC was dispatched with the highest level of urgency. This was associated with shorter call-to-CSC time (adjusted β [95% CI]: −27.6 min [−51.2 to −3.9]). No clinical characteristics were associated with call-to-CSC time. Conclusion: In patients transferred from a PSC for EVT, median call-to-CSC time was over 2.5 h. The highest level of urgency for dispatch of ambulances for EVT transfers should be used, as this clearly decreases time to treatment

Tranexamic Acid After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Post-Hoc Analysis of the ULTRA Trial

Background and ObjectivesThe ULTRA trial showed that ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment after subarachnoid hemorrhage did not improve clinical outcome at 6 months. An expected proportion of the included patients experienced nonaneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. In this post hoc study, we will investigate whether ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage improves clinical outcome at 6 months.MethodsThe ULTRA trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment, conducted between July 24, 2013, and January 20, 2020. After confirmation of subarachnoid hemorrhage on noncontrast CT, patients were allocated to either ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment with usual care or usual care only. In this post hoc analysis, we included all ULTRA participants with a confirmed aneurysm on CT angiography and/or digital subtraction angiography. The primary endpoint was clinical outcome at 6 months, assessed by the modified Rankin scale (mRS), dichotomized into good (0-3) and poor (4-6) outcomes.ResultsOf the 813 ULTRA trial patients who experienced an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, 409 (50%) were assigned to the tranexamic acid group and 404 (50%) to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 233 of 405 (58%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 238 of 399 (60%) patients in the control group had a good clinical outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.24). None of the secondary outcomes showed significant differences between the treatment groups: excellent clinical outcome (mRS 0-2) (aOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.57-1.03), all-cause mortality at 30 days (aOR 0.91; 95% CI 0.65-1.28), and all-cause mortality at 6 months (aOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.80-1.52).DiscussionUltra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment did not improve clinical outcomes at 6 months in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and therefore cannot be recommended.Trial Registration InformationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02684812; submission date February 18, 2016, first patient enrollment on July 24, 2013).Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in patients presenting with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Ultra-early tranexamic acid after subarachnoid haemorrhage (ULTRA): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, short-term antifibrinolytic therapy with tranexamic acid has been shown to reduce the risk of rebleeding. However, whether this treatment improves clinical outcome is unclear. We investigated whether ultra-early, short-term treatment with tranexamic acid improves clinical outcome at 6 months. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label trial with masked outcome assessment, adult patients with spontaneous CT-proven subarachnoid haemorrhage in eight treatment centres and 16 referring hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to treatment with tranexamic acid in addition to care as usual (tranexamic acid group) or care as usual only (control group). Tranexamic acid was started immediately after diagnosis in the presenting hospital (1 g bolus, followed by continuous infusion of 1 g every 8 h, terminated immediately before aneurysm treatment, or 24 h after start of the medication, whichever came first). The primary endpoint was clinical outcome at 6 months, assessed by the modified Rankin Scale, dichotomised into a good (0-3) or poor (4-6) clinical outcome. Both primary and safety analyses were according to intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02684812. FINDINGS: Between July 24, 2013, and July 29, 2019, we enrolled 955 patients; 480 patients were randomly assigned to tranexamic acid and 475 patients to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, good clinical outcome was observed in 287 (60%) of 475 patients in the tranexamic acid group, and 300 (64%) of 470 patients in the control group (treatment centre adjusted odds ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·66-1·12). Rebleeding after randomisation and before aneurysm treatment occurred in 49 (10%) patients in the tranexamic acid and in 66 (14%) patients in the control group (odds ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·48-1·04). Other serious adverse events were comparable between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with CT-proven subarachnoid haemorrhage, presumably caused by a ruptured aneurysm, ultra-early, short-term tranexamic acid treatment did not improve clinical outcome at 6 months, as measured by the modified Rankin Scale. FUNDING: Fonds NutsOhra