Abstract
Objective
Several studies indicate that only a small proportion of patients with acute ischaemic stroke are treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Indications and contraindications for this treatment are usually based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of randomised clinical trials. The trial context of these criteria hampers implementation in real life settings. We therefore aimed to obtain specialist opinion in a Delphi consensus on these contraindications.
Methods
We used the Delphi approach on an international group of specialists in the field of thrombolysis. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were reworded into 18 quantitatively phrased propositions. Feedback consisted of the median score, interquartile range and the panellist's own score in the previous round. For each item, we defined consensus as the achievement of an interdecile range within two prespecified clinically relevant units.
Results
Thirty‐one specialists participated in the first round and 30 completed all three rounds. Consensus was reached on 12 of the 18 propositions: previous ischaemic stroke, head trauma and gastrointestinal tract bleeding should not have taken place earlier than 1.5 months, 2 months and 14 days, respectively; the severity of the neurological deficit is defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 2–3 or more, and blood pressure level should not be >185/110 mmHg; platelet count should be >90×1012/l, glucose levels 2.7–22 mmol/l, international normalised ratio <1.5 and activated partial thromboplastin time <50 s. No consensus was reached on propositions concerning the stroke onset to treatment time, patient's age, recent medical procedures, spontaneous improvement rate and blood pressure treatment.
Conclusions
We present specialists' opinion on contraindications for intravenous thrombolysis in ischaemic stroke. The results of this study may be relevant for routine clinical practice as they may help to increase the number of treated patients.
Thrombolysis with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is an effective treatment for patients with acute ischaemic stroke.1 Four large randomised placebo controlled clinical trials of thrombolysis with intravenous rtPA have been carried out.2,3,4,5,6 The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) rtPA Stroke Study reported a clinically and statistically significant benefit.6 However, the proportion of patients who are treated with thrombolysis in survey studies ranges from only 3% to 7%.7,8,9,10
In most guidelines on stroke, indications and contraindications for intravenous thrombolysis are based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the NINDS Study.11,12,13,14 Although reasonable, this approach may not be ideal. Criteria may be set to exclude patients who are expected not to benefit or who may suffer harm from the intervention. Clearly, such criteria should also be used when the results are implemented in clinical practice. Other enrolment criteria for a study, however, are not designed to protect patients, but to exclude outliers and to ensure a homogenous patient population in statistical analysis. This applies, for example, to the use of the exclusion criteria “mild neurological impairment” and “rapidly improving symptoms”. In clinical practice, it may be unnecessary to exclude patients based on these latter criteria if they are not actually at an increased risk from the treatment and if they may benefit. Also, not all exclusion criteria in the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study have been defined in terms that can be easily translated into clinical practice. This may have led physicians to withhold treatment in a considerable number of patients who could benefit from thrombolysis. For example, in a survey conducted in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, only 20% of patients with acute stroke, admitted within 3 h of the onset of symptoms, were actually treated with thrombolysis. Reasons for not treating were “mild neurological impairment” (77%) and “rapidly improving symptoms” (44%).15 These contraindications were not defined further. Both criteria were not operationalised in the NINDS trial protocol. Other non‐operationalised exclusion criteria were “patients who were taking anticoagulants or who had received heparin within the 48 h preceding the onset of stroke and had an elevated partial thromboplastin time” because no threshold international normalised ratio (INR) or partial thromboplastin time are given. Overly conservative interpretation of these exclusion criteria of the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study undoubtedly reduces the number of treated patients. Lastly, analogous with treatment in acute myocardial infarction, clinicians may be withholding thrombolysis on account of perceived contraindications of increased haemorrhagic risk for which there is no evidence.16
The aim of our study was to modulate clinical inclusion and exclusion criteria for thrombolysis in ischaemic stroke based on agreement among clinicians with scientific experience in the treatment of acute stroke with thrombolysis.
Methods
We applied the Delphi technique on a group of international specialists in the field of thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. Consensus methods to elicit expert opinion, in particular the Delphi technique, are recommended when information from clinical trials is limited.17 A Delphi study uses expert judgements, and compares these judgements in several rounds with aggregate judgements of other experts, until consensus is reached for an item or group of items, according to prespecified criteria. The method is robust and several Delphi studies already exist that provide useful and practical clinical recommendations in cerebrovascular disease.18,19,20,21,22
Proposed contraindications
Inclusion criteria for the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study were ischaemic stroke with clearly defined onset, with a measurable deficit on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a baseline CT scan of the brain without evidence of intracranial haemorrhage. We rephrased the NINDS inclusion and exclusion criteria into single propositions. We also determined clinically relevant ranges and units for each proposed contraindication in advance. A range started with the most conservative value, as defined by the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study threshold value (table 1). Three exclusion criteria were not included in the Delphi rounds: a history of intracranial haemorrhage, symptoms suggestive of subarachnoid haemorrhage and seizure at onset of the stroke. These criteria are beyond the scope of this study, not because they are not relevant or disputable, but because they are difficult to rephrase as propositions with other than a dichotomous calibration. The supplementary appendix comprises all propositions as presented to the panellists (the appendix can be viewed on the JNNP website at http://www.jnnp.com/supplemental).
Table 1 Eighteen exclusion criteria from the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study,6 clinically relevant unit and range.
| No | Proposed contraindication | Clinically relevant unit | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maximum time between stroke onset and treatment (h) | 0.5 | 3–6 |
| 2 | Maximum patient's age (y) | 5 | 80–110 |
| 3 | Minimum time interval if previous stroke in history (months) | 1 | 3–0 |
| 4 | Minimum time interval if previous serious head trauma in history (months) | 1 | 3–0 |
| 5 | Minimum time interval if previous major surgery in history (days) | 1 | 14–0 |
| 6 | Minimum time interval if previous gastrointestinal haemorrhage in history (days) | 0.5 wk | 21–0 |
| 7 | Minimum time interval if previous urinary tract haemorrhage in history (days) | 0.5 wk | 21–0 |
| 8 | Minimum time interval if previous arterial puncture at a non‐compressible site in history (days) | 1 | 7–0 |
| 9 | Minimum stroke severity, indicated by NIHSS score | 1 | 5–0 |
| 10 | Maximum rate of improvement of symptoms (%) | 10 | 0–100%/h |
| 11 | Maximum systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) | 10 | 180–250 |
| 12 | Maximum diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) | 5 | 110–160 |
| 13 | Maximum blood pressure reduction (mm Hg) | 10 | 0–100 |
| 14 | Minimum platelet count (/l) | 10×1012 | <100–40×1012 |
| 15 | Maximum serum glucose level (mmol/l) | 2 | >22.2–40 |
| 16 | Minimum serum glucose level (mmol/l) | 1 | <2.7–0 |
| 17 | Maximum INR as a result of current anticoagulant treatment | 0.2 | 1–2.2 |
| 18 | Maximum APTT as a result of treatment with heparin within the previous 48 h (s) | 10 | 40–100 |
APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; INR, international normalised ratio; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.
The number correlates with the number of the listed propositions in the supplementary appendix (the appendix can be viewed on the JNNP website at http://www.jnnp.com/supplemental).
Panellists
First or last author of at least one publication on intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke in a peer reviewed medical journal was eligible for membership of the Delphi panel. Panellists were required to have personal clinical experience with thrombolysis and fluency in the English language. For identification, we systematically searched the MEDLINE database from January 1966 to December 2004 (fig 1). Panellists or “experts” in the Delphi methodology were invited by email and asked if they met the above mentioned criteria. They received information on the aim of the study and the Delphi procedure. Panel membership was not disclosed to other participants.
Figure 1 MEDLINE search strategy.
Delphi procedure
In the first Delphi round, each panellist rated the propositions. They were asked for their opinion on contraindications of thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg (with a maximum of 90 mg), administered intravenously. The instruction was: “Mark the most extreme value that in your opinion does not compromise the effectiveness and safety of thrombolysis for ischaemic stroke. Assume that all other symptoms and risk factors are well within a safe range”. Each proposition had its appropriate scale and measurement unit within a clinically relevant range. The propositions were scored using a web based form.
In the second and third Delphi rounds, the panellists were informed of the group's median score, the interquartile range (the range between the 75th and 25th deciles) for each proposition, and their own rating in the previous round. They were asked to reconsider their answers in view of this information.
Analysis
Consensus was considered to have been reached if the interdecile range (the difference between the ninth and first deciles) was within two clinically relevant units. As mentioned previously, these clinically relevant units were determined in advance. Crohnbach's alpha can be used as an index of reliability of a summation of entities.23 In our analysis, we used it to quantify the reliability of the panellist's ratings. The acceptable level of Crohnbach's alpha, indicating good reliability, is 0.90.23 To compute Crohnbach's alpha, all responses were standardised to a 0–1 range, with 0 being the most conservative value.
Results
Panellists
On the basis of the MEDLINE search and review of the articles, we identified email addresses of 93 first and last authors. Of the 46 authors who agreed to participate, 31 completed the first form in time; 30 panellists completed all three Delphi rounds (fig 2). The participating panellists were from 10 countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Israel, Korea, Spain, the UK and the USA).
Figure 2 Flow diagram of the formation of the Delphi panel.
Analysis
The panellists reached consensus on 12 of the 18 propositions (table 2). In four of the 12, the median value was the same as the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study limits (ie, for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and maximum and minimum serum glucose levels). In three of the 12, the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study provided no limit, as in the case of minimum stroke severity, INR and activated partial thromboplastin time. In the remaining five of the 12, the median value was different from the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study limit (ie, for previous stroke, previous head trauma, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, urinary tract haemorrhage and platelet count).
Table 2 All 18 propositions with the results in the three Delphi rounds (indicated by DI, DII and DIII).
| No | Keywords proposed contraindication | Unit | Criterion | DI | DII | DIII | Consensus | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Interdecile range | Median | Interdecile range | Median | Interdecile range | |||||
| 1 | Stroke onset to treatment time | h | 3 | 4.5 | (3–6) | 4.25 | (3–5.9) | 4 | (3–4.5) | No |
| 2 | Patient's age | y | – | 92.5 | (80.5–110) | 90 | (80–110) | 90 | (80–110) | No |
| 3 | Previous stroke | Month | 3 | 1.5 | (1–3) | 1.5 | (1–2.9) | 1.5 | (1–2) | Yes |
| 4 | Previous head trauma | Month | 3 | 2 | (1–3) | 2 | (1.5–3) | 2 | (1.6–3) | Yes |
| 5 | Recent major surgery | Day | 14 | 14 | (7–14) | 14 | (10–14) | 14 | (10–14) | No |
| 6 | Recent gastrointestinal haemorrhage | Day | 21 | 14 | (9–28) | 14 | (14–21) | 14 | (14–21) | Yes |
| 7 | Recent urinary tract haemorrhage | Day | 21 | 14 | (4–20.8) | 14 | (4.3–19.8) | 14 | (7–19.4) | Yes |
| 8 | Recent arterial puncture | Day | 7 | 6 | (2–7) | 6 | (2.1–7) | 5.5 | (3–7) | No |
| 9 | Stroke severity | NIHSS | – | 3 | (1–4.8) | 3 | (2–4) | 2.5 | (2–4) | Yes |
| 10 | Improvement rate | % | – | 37.5 | (20–80) | 37.5 | (20.5–79.5) | 40 | (30–74.5) | No |
| 11 | Systolic blood pressure | mm Hg | 185 | 185 | (180–208) | 185 | (180–200) | 185 | (180–199) | Yes |
| 12 | Diastolic blood pressure | mm Hg | 110 | 110 | (106–120) | 110 | (110–119.5) | 110 | (110–110) | Yes |
| 13 | Blood pressure reduction | mm Hg | 0 | 30 | (12–68) | 30 | (20–49) | 30 | (20–49) | No |
| 14 | Platelet count | ×109/l | 100 | 90 | (62–100) | 90 | (71–100) | 90 | (80–100) | Yes |
| 15 | Maximum serum glucose level | mmol/l | 22.2 | 22 | (22–28) | 22 | (22–25) | 22 | (22–25) | Yes |
| 16 | Minimum serum glucose level | mmol/l | 2.7 | 2.7 | (1.8–2.7) | 2.6 | (2.0–2.7) | 2.7 | (2.1–2.7) | Yes |
| 17 | INR | – | – | 1.5 | (1.2–1.8) | 1.5 | (1.2–1.7) | 1.5 | (1.3–1.6) | Yes |
| 18 | APTT | s | – | 50 | (40–60) | 50 | (40–50) | 50 | (40–50) | Yes |
APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; INR, international normalised ratio; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.
The results are presented as median score (interdecile range). The last column indicates whether consensus was reached.
The number correlates with the number of the listed propositions in the appendix (the appendix can be viewed on the JNNP website at http://www.jnnp.com/supplemental).
No consensus was reached on six propositions. In three (minimum time interval if previous stroke, previous major surgery or previous arterial puncture at a non‐compressible site in history), the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study limit was within the interdecile range of the last Delphi round. In two (maximum patient's age and maximum rate of improvement of symptoms), the NINDS rtPA Stroke Study had set no limit, and in the sixth (maximum blood pressure reduction), this limit was not within the interdecile range of the last Delphi round.
Crohnbach's alpha was 0.95 in the first round, 0.97 in the second and 0.98 in the final round, indicating high reliability.
Discussion
In this study, we used a Delphi approach to achieve consensus among an international group of specialists on indications and contraindications for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. We obtained consensus for 12 of the 18 propositions, which may facilitate the difficult implementation of these treatment criteria.
Interestingly, our Delphi panellists reached consensus on the INR value of 1.5, which is less than the value of 1.7 proposed in the guidelines of the American Heart Association.14 They also agreed on a minimal NIHSS score of 2 to 3 to warrant treatment. This definition of stroke severity is clinically relevant as “minor symptoms” is a frequently mentioned contraindication in clinical practice although it was never defined and left to the clinicians' interpretation.9 As the effect of treatment in these patients is consistent with the overall effect,24 and 27% of the too‐good‐to‐treat patients died or were not discharged home because of neurological worsening or persistent “mild” neurological deficit, we believe the proposed limit of stroke severity is a useful definition which might result in higher treatment rates.25
Consensus was not reached in our study on some important contraindications. The interdecile range for maximum stroke onset to treatment time was narrowed (from 3–6 to 3–4.5), but consensus was not reached. Results of ongoing clinical trials such as the IST‐3 or ECASS‐3 will be helpful as they are designed to study the time effectiveness relation beyond the 3 h window.26 Neither was consensus reached concerning age. Age is a prognostic factor; risks of mortality and poor outcome rise steeply with advancing age.27,28,29 Chen et al showed that patients older than 80 years have similar rates of recanalisation, short term improvement and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage as younger patients.30 Whether there should be an upper age limit remains controversial; a meta‐analysis across cohort studies could not answer this question.31 Although cohort studies have demonstrated that age is an important outcome predictor, these studies were unable to evaluate the effectiveness of rtPA in patients with increasing age because they could not compare “standard treatment and rtPA” with “standard treatment” alone.32 Also, no consensus was reached concerning blood pressure management. In a large cohort study, elevated pretreatment blood pressure was related to intracranial haemorrhage and poor outcome.28 Larrue et al reported that for every 1 mm Hg increase in baseline systolic blood pressure, the relative risk (odds ratio) of haemorrhagic transformation increased by 2%.27 This information, however, is not sufficient for justifying a treatment decision, as the modification of the treatment effect on overall outcome by blood pressure was not reported. In our opinion, the lack of consensus on the points mentioned above should not be surprising, given the availability of randomised evidence. It illustrates the differential nature and quality of a Delphi method. More randomised evidence should be pursued in these areas. The lack of consensus on the proposition dealing with the improvement rate is probably because of the difficult interpretation of this concept. We defined the improvement rate as the relative difference between the NIHSS score at 3 h and the highest NIHSS score ever, but symptoms fluctuate over time. Because of the difficulty in interpreting the exclusion criterion “rapidly improving”, we would propose using only a threshold NIHSS score to treat, if it involves interpretation of symptoms.
Our study has some limitations. Firstly, expert opinion can only complement evidence from randomised clinical trials. However, whether thrombolysis is effective in subgroups of specific indications or contraindications remains unclear because subgroup analyses from randomised trials of thrombolysis were not powered for this purpose.1,33 The results of our Delphi study may also help in interpreting existing guidelines for thrombolysis in ischaemic stroke in anticipation of the results of ongoing clinical trials (IST‐3, ECASS‐3 and EPITHET).20,21,22 In particular, IST‐3, which seeks to recruit 6000 patients, may provide information on the balance of risks and benefits in a much wider variety of patients than are defined by the NINDS trial criteria.26
Secondly, of the 44 panellists who were invited to participate and complete the Delphi forms, 29 (66%) responded. This can be explained by the short time allowed for reply in this methodology, and in our view does not suggest the introduction of bias. The relatively large number of participants contributes to the validity of this Delphi study. Moreover, 30 of the 31 panellists who began this consensus process by completing the first questionnaire continued through each of the subsequent rounds and completed the study. Unavoidably, some panellists have also played a role in international guideline development; this may have influenced their opinion. The origin of the panellists was North America (13), Europe (11), Australia (2), Asia (3) and South America (1). We consider them a representative group of specialists. The high reliability index (Crohnbach's alpha >0.95) suggests excellent reproducibility.
Thirdly, we selected the clinically relevant ranges and units for each proposed contraindication based on common clinical practice. One may challenge these initial choices on strict methodological grounds, but other selections would most likely lead to similar clinical judgements. The extent of early ischaemic changes on pretreatment CT was not included. We did not include this item because these changes do not seem to be independently associated with an increased risk of adverse outcome, or lack of effect after rTPA treatment, and interobserver reliability of these signs is limited.34,35
In conclusion, consensus was reached for one of the most frequently mentioned and clinically relevant criteria, namely the exclusion criterion of minor symptoms. Yet, no consensus was reached in the propositions concerning important issues such as maximum stroke onset to treatment time, patient's age and treatment of elevated blood pressure. The Dephi panel results might be helpful in translating trial results on thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke into day‐to‐day clinical practice. The exact definition of “minor symptoms” may facilitate treatment decisions in many patients. Using the demographic information from the cohort study of Katzan et al, one could conclude that this may result in 2–3 times as many patients being treated.9
The appendix can be viewed on the JNNP website at http://www.jnnp.com/supplemental.
Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We thank Theo Stijnen, PhD, Professor of Biostatistics, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Erasmus MC‐University Medical Centre, for his statistical advice.
Abbreviations
INR - international normalised ratio
NIHSS - National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale
NINDS - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
rtPA - recombinant tissue plasminogen activator
Footnotes
Funding: This study is part of a larger project that includes a clustered randomised trial to implement thrombolysis in acute stroke in Dutch hospitals, funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZON‐MW, grant No 945‐14‐217). ZON‐MW is the national health council appointed by the Ministry of Health (VWS) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to promote quality and innovation in the field of health research and care.
Competing interests: None declared.
The appendix can be viewed on the JNNP website at http://www.jnnp.com/supplemental.
References
- 1.Wardlaw J M, Zoppo G, Yamaguchi T.et al Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000213. Chichester: Wiley InterScience, 2003 [DOI] [PubMed]
- 2.Albers G W, Clark W M, Madden K P.et al ATLANTIS trial: results for patients treated within 3 hours of stroke onset. Alteplase Thrombolysis for Acute Noninterventional Therapy in Ischemic Stroke. Stroke 200233493–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Clark W M, Wissman S, Albers G W.et al Recombinant tissue‐type plasminogen activator (Alteplase) for ischemic stroke 3 to 5 hours after symptom onset. The ATLANTIS Study: a randomized controlled trial, Alteplase Thrombolysis for Acute Noninterventional Therapy in Ischemic Stroke. JAMA 19992822019–2026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C.et al Intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute hemispheric stroke. The European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS). JAMA 19952741017–1025. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C.et al Randomised double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II). Second European‐Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators. Lancet 19983521245–1251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt‐PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt‐PA Stroke Study Group. N Engl J Med 19953331581–1587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Schenkel J, Weimar C, Knoll T.et al R1—systemic thrombolysis in German stroke units—the experience from the German Stroke data bank. J Neurol 2003250320–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Szoeke C E, Parsons M W, Butcher K S.et al Acute stroke thrombolysis with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in an Australian tertiary hospital. Med J Aust 2003178324–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Katzan I L, Hammer M D, Hixson E D.et al Utilization of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. Arch Neurol 200461346–350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.California Acute Stroke Pilot Registry (CASPR) Investigators Prioritizing interventions to improve rates of thrombolysis for ischemic stroke. Neurology 200564654–659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hacke W, Kaste M, Bogousslavsky J.et al European Stroke Initiative Recommendations for Stroke Management—update 2003. Cerebrovasc Dis 200316311–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hacke W, Kaste M, Skyhoj O T.et al European Stroke Initiative (EUSI) recommendations for stroke management. The European Stroke Initiative Writing Committee. Eur J Neurol 20007607–623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO in collaboration with the Netherlands Heart Foundation. Stroke guideline (in Dutch). Utrecht: Van Zuiden Communications BV, 200075–78.
- 14.Adams H, Adams R, Del Z G.et al Guidelines for the early management of patients with ischemic stroke: 2005 guidelines update a scientific statement from the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 200536916–923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Katzan I L, Sila C A, Furlan A J. Community use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for acute stroke: results of the brain matters stroke management survey. Stroke 200132861–865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Wald D S. Perceived contraindications to thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. A survey at a teaching hospital. J Accid Emerg Med 199815329–331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Jones J, Hunter D. Qualitative research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995311376–380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Alexandrov A V, Pullicino P M, Meslin E M.et al Agreement on disease‐specific criteria for do‐not‐resuscitate orders in acute stroke. Members of the Canadian and Western New York Stroke Consortiums. Stroke 199627232–237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Goldstein L B, Matchar D B. The Stroke P.O.R.T.: secondary and tertiary prevention of ischemic stroke, Stroke Prevention Patient Outcomes Research Team. Health Rep 19946154–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Holloway R G, Vickrey B G, Benesch C.et al Development of performance measures for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2001322058–2074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Matchar D B, Oddone E Z, McCrory D C.et al Influence of projected complication rates on estimated appropriate use rates for carotid endarterectomy. Appropriateness Project Investigators. Academic Medical Center Consortium. Health Serv Res 199732325–342. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Meijer R, Ihnenfeldt D, Vermeulen M.et al The use of a modified Delphi procedure for the determination of 26 prognostic factors in the sub‐acute stage of stroke. Int J Rehabil Res 200326265–270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bland J M, Altman D G. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ 1997314572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hacke W, Donnan G, Fieschi C.et al Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt‐PA stroke trials. Lancet 2004363768–774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Smith E E, Abdullah A R, Petkovska I.et al Poor outcomes in patients who do not receive intravenous tissue plasminogen activator because of mild or improving ischemic stroke. Stroke 2005362497–2499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Major Ongoing Stroke Trials—Third International Stroke Trial (IST‐3). Stroke 200536e160–e161. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Larrue V, von Kummer R, Muller A.et al Risk factors for severe hemorrhagic transformation in ischemic stroke patients treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator: a secondary analysis of the European‐Australasian Acute Stroke Study (ECASS II). Stroke 200132438–441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Tanne D, Kasner S E, Demchuk A M.et al Markers of increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage after intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator therapy for acute ischemic stroke in clinical practice: the Multicenter rt‐PA Stroke Survey. Circulation 20021051679–1685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Engelter S T, Reichhart M, Sekoranja L.et al Thrombolysis in stroke patients aged 80 years and older: Swiss survey of IV thrombolysis. Neurology 2005651795–1798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chen C I, Iguchi Y, Grotta J C.et al Intravenous TPA for very old stroke patients. Eur Neurol 200554140–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Engelter S T, Bonati L H, Lyrer P A. Intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients of > or = 80 versus <80 years of age—a systematic review across cohort studies. Age Ageing 200635572–580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Vroomen P C, Uyttenbogaart M, Luijckv G J. Misleading conclusions on rt‐PA treatment in the very elderly. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 200677799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ingall T J, O'Fallon W M, Asplund K.et al Findings From the reanalysis of the NINDS tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke treatment trial. Stroke 2004352418–2424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Demchuk A M, Hill M D, Barber P A.et al Importance of early ischemic computed tomography changes using ASPECTS in NINDS rtPA Stroke Study. Stroke 2005362110–2115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Patel S C, Levine S R, Tilley B C.et al Lack of clinical significance of early ischemic changes on computed tomography in acute stroke. JAMA 20012862830–2838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.