Cargando…

Thrombolysis implementation intervention and clinical outcome: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have attempted to increase the rate of intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic stroke using interventions to promote adherence to guidelines. Still, many of them did not measure individual-level impact. This study aimed to make a posthoc comparison of the clinical outcomes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hasnain, Md Golam, Paul, Christine L., Attia, John R., Ryan, Annika, Kerr, Erin, Oldmeadow, Christopher, D’Este, Catherine A., Bivard, Andrew, Hubbard, Isobel J., Milton, Abul Hasnat, Levi, Christopher R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7542125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33023494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-020-01705-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have attempted to increase the rate of intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic stroke using interventions to promote adherence to guidelines. Still, many of them did not measure individual-level impact. This study aimed to make a posthoc comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients in the “Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke (TIPS)” study, which aimed to improve rates of intravenous thrombolysis in Australia. METHODS: A posthoc analysis was conducted using individual-level patient data. Excellent (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 0–2) and poor clinical outcome (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 5–6) and post treatment parenchymal haematoma were the three main outcomes, and a mixed logistic regression model was used to assess the difference between the intervention and control groups. RESULTS: There was a non-significant higher odds of having an excellent clinical outcome of 57% (odds ratio: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.73–3.39) and 33% (odds ratio: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.73–2.44) during the active-and post-intervention period respectively, for the intervention compared to the control group. A non-significant lower odds of having a poor clinical outcome was also found in the intervention, relative to control group of 4% (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.56–2.07) and higher odds of having poor outcome of 44% (odds ratio: 1.44 95% CI: 0.61–3.41) during both active and post-intervention period respectively. Similarly, a non-significant lower odds of parenchymal haematoma was also found for the intervention group during the both active- (odds ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21–1.32) and post-intervention period (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.36–2.52). CONCLUSION: The TIPS multi-component implementation approach was not effective in reducing the odds of post-treatment severe disability at 90 days, or post-thrombolysis hemorrhage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/ Unique Identifier: ACTRN12613000939796.