MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 56: Thrombolysis in Selected Patients with Wake Up Stroke is Feasible with Similar Safety as Thrombolysis in 0-4.5 Hours

2012· article· en· W6224642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dulka Manawadu, Shankaranand Bodla, Józef Jarosz, Lalit Kalra

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisMedicineStroke (engine)Internal medicineFibrinolytic agentCardiologyEmergency medicineTissue plasminogen activatorMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Thrombolysis with alteplase is effective within 4.5 hours of ischaemic stroke onset in patients with no or early ischaemic changes (EIC) on CT. Patients with wake up strokes (WUS) make up to 25' of all strokes but are excluded on the basis of time alone. Emerging data suggest that imaging appearances in many WUS patients are similar to those treated within 4.5 h and recanalisation therapies may be beneficial. Hypothesis Treatment with alteplase in WUS patients selected on CT imaging findings showing no or limited EIC who would otherwise be eligible for thrombolysis will have functional outcome and bleeding risks similar to those thrombolysed within 4.5 hours of stroke onset. Methods We analysed registry data between January 2009 and December 2010 for WUS patients thrombolysed on compassionate grounds with consent and compared their outcomes with those thrombolysed within 4.5 hours of stroke onset. Standard guidelines were followed but there was no upper age limit for thrombolysis. WUS patients were thrombolysed if they met all eligibility criteria apart from time and the non-enhanced CT scan showed an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of ≥7. CT Perfusion (CTP) mismatch was used as an additional modality for assessing eligibility for thrombolysis in a proportion of WUS patients but was not obligatory. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were defined a priori and were masked to outcomes. Results The analysis included 356 patients thrombolysed within 4.5 hours of stroke onset and 68 thrombolysed WUS patients. The two groups were comparable for mean age (72.6 v 74.8, years, p=0.28) and vascular risks profile but there were more women in the WUS group (66% v 52%, p=0.034). There were fewer WUS patients with premorbid Rankin Score (mRS) of 0-2 (69% v 84% p=0.01). There were no differences in mean baseline BP (151/85 v 153/84 mm Hg, p=0.55), mean blood glucose (6.5 v 6.5 mmols/L, p=0.99) and mean National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (13.2 v 12.6, p=0.44). CTP was undertaken in 26% patients within 4.5 h and in 67% of WUS patients (p<0.0001). The door to needle time was 59 minutes and 73 minutes respectively (p=0.11). There were no differences in mean NIHSS score at 24 hours (9.2 v 8.1, p=0.32), any intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (17% v 22%, p=0.21), symptomatic ICH (2.5% v 2.9%, p=0.55) and mRS 0-2 at 3 months (49% v 37%, p=0.10) between patients within 4.5 h and WUS patients. Mortality at 3 months was lower in thrombolysed WUS patients (15% v 24%, p=0.063) and became significant after adjusting for co-variates in multiple regression (p=0.024). Conclusion Functional and safety outcomes after thrombolysis in WUS patients selected using CT imaging based protocols is comparable to that of patients treated within 4.5 h of stroke onset. Our experience suggests that randomization of patients with WUS on the basis of defined imaging criteria in thrombolysis trials is appropriate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207