Intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke after antagonization of unfractionated heparin with protamine: case series and systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is standard of care for disabling acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within a time window of ⩽ 4.5 h. Some AIS patients cannot be treated with IVT due to limiting contraindications, including heparin usage in an anticoagulating dose within the past 24 h or an elevated activated prothrombin time (aPTT) > 15 s. Protamine is a potent antidote to unfractionated heparin. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of IVT in AIS patients after antagonization of unfractionated heparin with protamine. METHODS: Patients from our stroke center (between January 2015 and September 2021) treated with IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine were analyzed. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was used for stroke severity and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) for outcome assessment. Substantial neurological improvement was defined as the difference between admission and discharge NIHSS of ⩾8 or discharge NIHSS of ⩽1. Good outcome at follow-up after 3 months was defined as mRS 0–2. Safety data were obtained for mortality, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and for adverse events due to protamine. Second, a systematic review was performed searching PubMed and Scopus for studies and case reviews presenting AIS patients treated with IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine. The search was limited from January 1, 2011 to September 29, 2021. Furthermore, we conducted a propensity score matching comparing protamine-treated patients to a control IVT group without protamine (ratio 2:1, match tolerance 0.2). RESULTS: A total of 16 patients, 5 treated in our hospital and 11 from literature, [65.2 ± 13.1 years, 37.5% female, median premorbid mRS (pmRS) 1 (IQR 1, 4)] treated with IVT after heparin antagonization using protamine were included and compared to 31 IVT patients [76.2 ± 10.9 years, 45% female, median pmRS 1 (IQR 0, 2)]. Substantial neurological improvement was evident in 68.8% of protamine-treated patients versus 38.7% of control patients (p = 0.028). Good clinical outcome at follow-up was observed in 56.3% versus 58.1% of patients (p = 0.576). No adverse events due to protamine were reported, one patient suffered sICH after secondary endovascular thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion. Mortality was 6.3% versus 22.6% (p = 0.236). CONCLUSION: IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine seems to be safe and, prospectively, may extend the number of AIS patients who can benefit from reperfusion treatment using IVT. Further prospective registry trials would be helpful to further investigate the clinical applicability of heparin antagonization.