Stroke center certification: where are we in 2010?

Thrombolysis is an Independent Risk Factor for Poor Outcome After Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Thrombolysis is the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke patients presenting in the appropriate time window. Studies suggest that the risk of recurrent ischemia is lower if carotid revascularization is performed early after the index event. The safety of early carotid revascularization in this patient population is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of carotid revascularization in patients who received thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried for patients admitted through the emergency room with a primary diagnosis of carotid stenosis and/or occlusion. Each patient was reviewed for administration of thrombolysis, carotid endarterectomy, (CEA) or carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). Primary endpoints were intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), postprocedural stroke (PPS), poor outcome, and in-hospital mortality. Potential risk factors were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 310 257 patients were analyzed. Patients who received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and underwent either CEA or CAS had a significantly higher risk of developing an ICH or PPS than patients who underwent either CEA or CAS without tPA administration. The increased risk of ICH or PPS in tPA-treated patients who underwent carotid revascularization diminished with time, and became similar to patients who underwent carotid revascularization without tPA administration by 7 d after thrombolysis. Patients who received tPA and underwent CEA or CAS also had higher odds of poor outcome and in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Thrombolysis is a strong risk factor for ICH, PPS, poor outcome, and in-hospital mortality in patients with carotid stenosis/occlusion who undergo carotid revascularization. The increased risk of ICH or PPS due to tPA declines with time after thrombolysis. Delaying carotid revascularization in these patients may therefore be appropriate. This delay, however, will expose these patients to the risk of recurrent stroke. Future studies are needed to determine the relative risks of these 2 adverse events.

Compliance with acute stroke care quality measures in hospitals with and without primary stroke center certification: the North Carolina Stroke Care Collaborative

Background

Organized stroke care is associated with improved outcomes. Data are limited on differences in changes in the quality of acute stroke care at The Joint Commission–certified Primary Stroke Centers (PSCs) versus non‐PSCs over time.

Methods and Results

We compared compliance with the Joint Commission's 10 acute stroke care performance measures and defect‐free care in PSCs and non‐PSCs participating in the Registry of the North Carolina Stroke Care Collaborative from January 2005 through February 2010. We included 29 654 cases presenting at 47 hospitals—10 PSCs, 8 preparing for certification, and 29 non‐PSCs—representing 43% of North Carolina's non–Veterans Affairs, acute care hospitals. Using a non‐PSC referent, odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated using logistic regression and generalized estimating equations accounting for clustering of cases within hospitals. Time trends were presented graphically using simple linear regression. Performance measure compliance increased for all measures for all 3 groups in 2005–2010, with the exception of discharge on antithrombotics, which remained consistently high. PSCs and hospitals preparing for certification had better compliance with all but 2 performance measures compared with non‐PSCs (each P<0.01). Defect‐free care was delivered most consistently at hospitals preparing for certification (52.8%), followed by PSCs (45.0%) and non‐PSCs (21.9%). Between 2005 and 2010, PSCs and hospitals preparing for certification had a higher average annual percent increase in the provision of defect‐free care (P=0.01 and 0.04, respectively) compared with non‐PSCs.

Conclusions

PSC certification is associated with an overall improvement in the quality of stroke care in North Carolina; however, room for improvement remains.

Intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator therapy is an independent risk factor for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage after carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) for acute ischemic stroke are proven therapies; however, the safety of CEA in stroke patients who recently received IV-tPA has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of CEA in stroke patients who recently received IV-tPA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis was performed. The primary end point was postoperative symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). A univariate analysis of potential risk factors for sICH, including IV-tPA therapy, timing of CEA, degree of stenosis, and stroke severity, was performed. Factors with a value of P < .1 on univariate analysis were tested further.

RESULTS

Among 142 patients, 3 suffered sICH after CEA: 2 of 11 patients treated with IV-tPA (18.2%) and 1 of 131 patients not treated with IV-tPA (0.8%). Both IV-tPA patients suffering sICH underwent CEA within 3 days of tPA administration. On univariate analysis, IV-tPA (P = .02), female sex (P = .09), shorter time between ischemic event and CEA (P = .06), and lower mean arterial pressure during the first 48 hours of admission (P = .08) were identified as risk factors for sICH. On multivariate analysis, IV-tPA was the only significant risk factor (P = .002 by stepwise logistic regression; P = .03 by nominal logistic regression).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that IV-tPA is an independent risk factor for sICH after CEA. This suggests that CEA should be pursued cautiously in patients who recently received IV-tPA. Early surgery may be associated with an increased risk for sICH.

ABBREVIATIONS

CEA, carotid endarterectomyIV-tPA, intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activatorMAP, mean arterial pressureNASCET, North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy TrialNIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke ScaleNINDS, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokesICH, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhageTIA, transient ischemic attack.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing primary stroke center policy in the United States: results from 4 case study states

OBJECTIVES

We identified barriers and facilitators to the state-level implementation of primary stroke center (PSC) policies, which encourage the certification or designation of specialized stroke treatment facilities and may address concerns such as transportation bypass, telemedicine, and treatment protocols.

METHODS

We studied the experiences of 4 states (Florida, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and New York) selected from the 18 states that had enacted PSC policies or were actively considering doing so. We conducted semistructured interviews during fieldwork in each case study state.

RESULTS

Our results showed that system fragmentation, gaps in human and financial resources, and complexity at the interorganizational and operational levels are common barriers and that policy champions, stakeholder support and communication, and operational adaptation are essential facilitators in the adoption and implementation of PSC policies.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of barriers and facilitators reveals the contextual elements that can help or hinder policy implementation and may be useful in informing policy formulation and implementation in other jurisdictions. Proactively identifying jurisdictional challenges and opportunities may help facilitate the policy process for PSC designation and allow jurisdictions to develop more effective stroke systems of care.