can patients be too mild too severe or too old for thrombolysis n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Can patients be too mild, too severe or too old for thrombolysis? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Can patients be too mild, too severe or too old for thrombolysis?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Can patients be too mild, too severe or too old for thrombolysis? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

Can patients be too mild, too severe or too old for thrombolysis?. Professor Peter Sandercock University of Edinburgh ESC Hamburg 27 th May 2011. Disclosures I am co-chief investigator of the IST3 trial I chair the DMC for the SYNTHESIS trial. Outline.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Can patients be too mild, too severe or too old for thrombolysis?' - baylee


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
can patients be too mild too severe or too old for thrombolysis
Can patients be too mild, too severe or too old for thrombolysis?

Professor Peter SandercockUniversity of Edinburgh

ESC Hamburg 27th May 2011

Disclosures

I am co-chief investigator of the IST3 trial

I chair the DMC for the SYNTHESIS trial

outline
Outline
  • ‘Opinion-’ or ‘evidence-based’ practice?
  • ‘Routine’ iv thrombolysis, influence of
    • age
    • severity
  • Evidence from randomised trials
    • Meta-analyses
    • Unanswered questions: current trials
opinion or evidence based practice
‘Opinion-’ or ‘evidence-based’ practice?
  • 15 million acute strokes/ year world wide -> we need RELIABLE evidence
  • Expert opinion varies about whether to treat
    • patients over 80 years
    • Mild (NIHSS 0-5) / severe (NIHSS > 25)
  • Routine practice varies between centres
  • ‘Best evidence’ comes from randomised trials and systematic reviews of trials
slide4
Routine care: the older you are, the less likely you are to get rt-PA for stroke: Germany (similar in USA)

Age

Förch. Stroke 2009;40:1900-2

randomised controlled trial rct evidence

Randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence

Subgroup analyses:

What is the effect of age & NIHSS on response to iv rt-PA?

trials need to be large
Trials need to be large!

…It is still not sufficiently widely appreciated just how large clinical trials need to be to detect reliably the sort of moderate, but important, differences in major outcomes’ that might exist (especially if effects in different subgroup are to be assessed reliably)’.

Collins, Lancet 2001; volume 357: 373

rct s of iv thrombolysis vs control in acute myocardial infarct mi and in acute stroke
RCT’s of iv thrombolysis vs control in acute myocardial infarct (MI) and in acute stroke

Placebo-controlled trials of thrombolysis in acute MI

Total 1994 60,000

Placebo-controlled trials of thrombolysis in acute stroke

All agents (26 trials) 2009 7,100

rt-PA (11 trials) 2009 4,000*

*Largest stroke trial included just 800 patients

RCT data on only 67 patients aged >80

slide8

NINDS subgroups: effect of baseline NIHSS on likelihood of favourable outcome (mRS)

Ingall, T. J. et al. Stroke 2004;35:2418-2424

slide9

Non-randomised data: VISTA

functional outcomes x baseline NIHSS

Mishra, N. K. et al. Stroke 2010;41:2612-2617

conclusion
Conclusion?
  • Very few mild and severe strokes included in randomised trials
  • Effects in mild and severe strokes UNCLEAR
    • NINDS
    • Non-randomised VISTA database analysis
  • European approval for iv rtPA excludes mild and severe strokes
  • Pooled analysis of RCTs would be helpful…
slide11

Pooled analysis of 7 rt-PA trials (n= 3670)

Time to treatment and odds of ‘good outcome’ (mRS 0-1)

Lees et al Lancet 2010

pooled analysis authors conclusions
Pooled analysis, authors conclusions:
  • ‘We need to understand better the factors that prevent alteplase from being effective in individual patients… clinical variables e.g.: age, stroke severity, …
  • ‘..these factors must have a role in the success of thrombolysis, but are poorly understood’
  • No analyses were performed to assess effects of age / NIHSS on response to rtPA in specific subgroups

Lees et al Lancet 2010

two views
Two views
  • We already know who to treat: ‘There is no need to continue with randomised trials, we now can treat at any age, any severity and up to 4.5 hours (or even beyond)’
  • The evidence is not as clear as some experts make out: ‘We need randomised evidence on the effects in:
    • people > 80yrs
    • NIHSS 15, NHSS >25’
  • Conclusion: We need both clinical experience and RCT evidence
ongoing randomised trials iv rt pa vs control
Ongoing randomised trials iv rt-PA vs control

*CT, MR perfusion/angiography optional

slide15

Third International Stroke Trial. A large randomised trial to answer the question: can a wider variety of patients be treated with iv thrombolytic therapy?

main features of ist 3
Main features of IST - 3
  • Randomised, open, blinded outcomes study of i.v. rt-PA vs control,
  • Target 3100 patients < 6 h of acute ischaemic stroke (n=2902 by today)
  • No age or severity exclusion criteria
  • Primary outcome: the proportion of patients alive and independent at six months
  • Randomisation by telephone or internet
  • Imaging: CT or MR, perfusion/angio data if available.
  • Blinded central review of all scans
slide17
Age

Already over 1200 patients aged > 80 years in study!

ist 3 will report its results at esc 2012 in lisbon
IST-3 will report its results at ESC 2012 in Lisbon

Main results

  • Primary outcome all cases 0-6h

Main subgroups

  • Effect x time 0- 6h
  • Effect x age

~ 1500 patients aged > 80 years).

  • Effect x severity:

~ 600 with NIHSS < 5 (mild)

~ 400 with NIHSS > 24 (severe)

conclusion iv thrombolysis
Conclusion: iv thrombolysis
  • There is no reliable randomised trial evidence about optimum stroke severity or age limit for iv treatment
  • Uncertainty about
    • Age: how old is ‘too old’ ?
    • Severity: too mild ? / too severe?
  • Current trials (IST-3, TESPI, ?PRISM) will help resolve these uncertainties
slide21

Acknowledgements:

The patients, the >115 hospitals in the IST-3 group, who have recruited at least 1 patient, the Data Monitoring Committee, the MRC Steering Committee, Image reading panel, International Advisory Board,

Event adjudication panel