Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2006;37:2963-2969
Published online before print October 26, 2006, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000249005.37120.9f
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
37/12/2963    most recent
01.STR.0000249005.37120.9fv1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hacke, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hacke, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Fibrinolysis
Right arrow Acute Cerebral Infarction
Right arrow Emergency treatment of Stroke
Right arrow Thrombolysis

(Stroke. 2006;37:2963.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.


Original Contributions

Can Multivariable Risk-Benefit Profiling Be Used to Select Treatment-Favorable Patients for Thrombolysis in Stroke in the 3- to 6-Hour Time Window?

David M. Kent, MD, MS; Harry P. Selker, MD, MSPH; Robin Ruthazer, MPH; Erich Bluhmki, PhD Werner Hacke, MD

From Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies and Department of Medicine (D.M.K., H.P.S., R.R.), Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass; Boehringer Ingelheim (E.B.), Ingelheim, Germany; Department of Neurology (W.H.), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Correspondence to David M. Kent, MD, MS, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts-New England Medical Center, 750 Washington St, #63, Boston, MA 02111. E-mail Dkent1{at}tufts-nemc.org

Background and Purpose— The Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument (Stroke-TPI) uses multivariate equations to predict outcomes with and without thrombolysis. We sought to examine whether such a multivariate predictive instrument might be useful in selecting patients with a favorable risk-benefit treatment profile for therapy after 3 hours.

Methods— We explored outcomes in patients from 5 major randomized clinical trials testing intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) classified by the Stroke-TPI as "treatment-favorable" or "treatment-unfavorable." We used iterative bootstrap re-sampling to estimate how such a model would perform on independent test data.

Results— Among patients treated within the 3- to 6-hour window, 67% of patients were classified by Stroke-TPI predicted outcomes as "treatment-favorable" and 33% were classified as "treatment-unfavorable." Outcomes in the treatment-favorable group demonstrated benefit for thrombolysis (modified Rankin Scale score ≤1: 44.0% with rt-PA versus 34.2 with placebo, P=0.005), whereas harm was demonstrated in the treatment-unfavorable group (modified Rankin Scale score ≤1: 31.3% with rt-PA versus 38.3% with placebo; P=0.004). Bootstrap resampling with complete cross-validation showed that the absolute margin of benefit in the treatment-favorable group diminished on average by 36% between derivation and independent validation sets, but still represented a significant tripling of improvement in benefit compared with conventional inclusion criteria (5.2% [interquartile range, 1.7% to 8.6%] versus 1.8% [interquartile range, –0.5 to 4.1], P<0.0001).

Conclusions— Such multivariable risk-benefit profiling may be useful in the selection of acute stroke patients for rt-PA therapy even more than 3 hours after symptom onset. Prospective testing is indicated.


Key Words: acute care • acute Rx • acute stroke • emergency medicine • outcomes • risk factors • stroke management • thrombolysis • thrombolytic Rx • treatment predictive modeling




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. PsychiatryHome page
M Uyttenboogaart, R E Stewart, P C Vroomen, G-J Luijckx, and J De Keyser
Utility of the stroke-thrombolytic predictive instrument
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, September 1, 2008; 79(9): 1079 - 1081.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
E. B. Milbrandt, A. Ishizaka, and D. C. Angus
Update in Critical Care 2006
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2007; 175(7): 638 - 648.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
D. M. Kent, H. P. Selker, R. Ruthazer, E. Bluhmki, and W. Hacke
The Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument: A Predictive Instrument for Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Stroke, December 1, 2006; 37(12): 2957 - 2962.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]