Skip to main content
  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • Editorial Board
    • General Statistics
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
    • Information for Advertisers
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • Editor Picks
    • Blogging Stroke
    • AHA/ASA Guidelines and Statements
    • ISC and Nursing Symposium Abstracts
    • Progress and Innovation Award Recipients
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Stroke in Women
    • Outstanding Reviewers 2017
  • Resources
    • Online Submission/Peer Review
    • Instructions for Authors
    • → Article Types
    • → General Preparation Instructions
    • → Research Guidelines
    • → How to Submit a Manuscript
    • → Tips for Submission
    • → Links and Forms
    • → Revised Manuscripts
    • Costs to Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Wolters Kluwer Author Services
    • Early Career Resources
    • Stroke CME
    • Webinar Series
    • Permissions and Rights Q&A
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Advanced search

Header Publisher Menu

  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

Stroke

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • Editorial Board
    • General Statistics
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
    • Information for Advertisers
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • Editor Picks
    • Blogging Stroke
    • AHA/ASA Guidelines and Statements
    • ISC and Nursing Symposium Abstracts
    • Progress and Innovation Award Recipients
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Stroke in Women
    • Outstanding Reviewers 2017
  • Resources
    • Online Submission/Peer Review
    • Instructions for Authors
    • → Article Types
    • → General Preparation Instructions
    • → Research Guidelines
    • → How to Submit a Manuscript
    • → Tips for Submission
    • → Links and Forms
    • → Revised Manuscripts
    • Costs to Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Wolters Kluwer Author Services
    • Early Career Resources
    • Stroke CME
    • Webinar Series
    • Permissions and Rights Q&A
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
Original Contributions; Clinical Sciences

Impact of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Patients >80 Years of Age

The Specialized Program of Translational Research in Acute Stroke (SPOTRIAS) Consortium Experience

Joshua Z. Willey, Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez, Nils Petersen, Pooja Khatri, Andria L. Ford, Natalia S. Rost, Latisha K. Ali, Nichole R. Gonzales, Jose G. Merino, Brett C. Meyer, Randolph S. Marshall
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.660993
Stroke. 2012;43:2369-2375
Originally published August 27, 2012
Joshua Z. Willey
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nils Petersen
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pooja Khatri
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andria L. Ford
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalia S. Rost
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Latisha K. Ali
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nichole R. Gonzales
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose G. Merino
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brett C. Meyer
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Randolph S. Marshall
From the Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY (J.Z.W., S.O.-G., N.P., R.S.M.); the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (P.K.); the Department of Neurology, Washington University, St Louis, MO (A.L.F.); the Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (N.S.R.); the Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (L.K.A.); the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Houston, Houston, TX (N.R.G.); the Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.G.M.); and the Department of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (B.C.M.).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

Background and Purpose—Few studies have addressed outcomes among patients ≥80 years treated with acute stroke therapy. In this study, we outline in-hospital outcomes in (1) patients ≥80 years compared with their younger counterparts; and (2) those over >80 years receiving intra-arterial therapy (IAT) compared with those treated with intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV rtPA).

Methods—Stroke centers within the Specialized Program of Translational Research in Acute Stroke (SPOTRIAS) prospectively collected data on all patients treated with IV rtPA or IAT from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2010. IAT was defined as receiving any endovascular therapy; IAT was further divided into bridging therapy when the patient received both IAT and IV rtPA and endovascular therapy alone. In-hospital mortality was compared in (1) all patients aged ≥80 years versus younger counterparts; and (2) IAT, bridging therapy, and endovascular therapy alone versus IV rtPA only among those age ≥80 years using multivariable logistic regression. An age-stratified analysis was also performed.

Results—A total of 3768 patients were included in the study; 3378 were treated with IV rtPA alone and 808 with IAT (383 with endovascular therapy alone and 425 with bridging therapy). Patients ≥80 years (n=1182) had a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with younger counterparts regardless of treatment modality (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.60–2.84). When limited to those aged ≥80 years, IAT (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60–1.49), bridging therapy (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.47–1.45), or endovascular therapy alone (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.64–2.08) versus IV rtPA were not associated with increased in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions—IAT does not appear to increase the risk of in-hospital mortality among those aged >80 years compared with IV thrombolysis alone.

  • acute Rx
  • acute stroke
  • interventional neuroradiology

Introduction

The incidence of ischemic stroke increases with age and is particularly high in people aged >80 years.1 Compared with younger patients, ischemic stroke is more likely to be associated with severe neurological impairment, larger infarct volume, and higher morbidity and mortality rates in older patients.1 In-hospital complications including stroke expansion, hemorrhagic transformation, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, cardiac complications, and mortality are more likely in patients aged ≥80 years compared with younger patients.2,3 Perhaps because of the greater impairment and disability in this age group, treatment with intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV rtPA) remains controversial for some practitioners2 and has not been approved by the European Medicines Evaluations Agency.3 Clinical trials in acute stroke have previously excluded octogenarians.4,5 Controversy over how to treat older patients mainly stems from concern over excess risk of hemorrhage, lower likelihood of clinical benefit,6–12 and higher in-hospital and 3-month mortality.13–15 Nonetheless, despite increased complications, this patient population still appears to benefit from thrombolysis,16–20 although in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke tPA trial, only a small proportion of participants were age >80 years.21,22

With the emergence of endovascular therapy, there has been an increased interest in determining whether this treatment modality is safe in older patients. Endovascular treatment has been associated with higher mortality rates and lower likelihood of clinical benefit among patients aged >80 years,23–25 although some older patients may still benefit from endovascular therapy.26 In the present study, we aimed to evaluate mortality and hospital disposition outcomes in patients ≥80 years treated with endovascular therapy. We hypothesized that because of higher complication rates overall in this population, (1) treatment with endovascular therapy would be associated with a greater risk of in-hospital mortality in patients ≥80 years compared to younger counterparts; but (2) in-hospital mortality would be similar among those ≥80 years receiving endovascular therapy versus IV rtPA.

Methods

Patient Selection and Data Collection

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patients with acute stroke admitted to Specialized Program of Translational Research in Acute Stroke (SPOTRIAS) centers between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at each center.

SPOTRIAS is a National Institutes of Health-funded program consisting of 8 academic stroke programs with the central aim of testing novel stroke treatments in the Phase I and II stages (see “Acknowledgments”). Each SPOTRIAS center maintains a prospective acute stroke patient database that collects admission and in-hospital characteristics as well as clinical outcomes in all patients who either received acute stroke treatments or are enrolled in one of the SPOTRIAS clinical trials. We examined data from all patients from the SPOTRIAS database who received acute stroke therapy. Demographic and clinical data elements collected for the SPOTRIAS consortium database included age, race–ethnicity, sex, pretreatment National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), acute stroke treatment modality, discharge destination, and in-hospital mortality. Prestroke modified Rankin Scale was collected at only 6 sites (n=2074). Ninety-day clinical outcomes, information regarding symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale, and causes of death were available in only a limited number of patients; time to treatment with IV rtPA and intra-arterial therapy was not captured.

Data and Statistical Analysis

For our first hypothesis the principal explanatory variable was being aged ≥80 years. For our second hypothesis the principal explanatory variable was intra-arterial therapy (IAT), defined as receiving any intra-arterial pharmacological or mechanical endovascular treatment regardless of preceding IV rtPA. IAT was further divided into bridging therapy (BT) when the patient received both IAT and IV rtPA and endovascular therapy alone (ETA) when patients did not receive IV rtPA before endovascular treatment. Outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and discharge to a facility other than home.

Continuous variables were first dichotomized to relevant clinical cut points. Patients were divided into 2 age categories (<80 and ≥80 years) based on common exclusion criteria of several recent clinical trials such as Pro-Urokinase for Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism (PROACT-II), Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III, and European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS) III and the ongoing clinical concern about treating octogenarians with IAT.24 To evaluate the influence of age on mortality for each treatment group, an age-stratified analysis was performed. Age was stratified in deciles; age <50 years selected as the reference category. Severe stroke was defined as NIHSS ≥12.27 Initial proportions for each treatment arm were calculated for descriptive statistics. Categorical variables were assessed in a univariate analysis using χ2 analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for independent associations between age and IAT with in-hospital mortality and discharge disposition. We first performed univariate analyses (Model 1) followed by a model adjusted for baseline demographics: sex, race–ethnicity, and SPOTRIAS center (Model 2). Our final model (Model 3) was further adjusted for our hypothesized principal confounders: NIHSS and serum glucose level. All analyses were performed using SAS Version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC); P≤0.05 was set as statistically significant.

Results

Baseline Characteristics

A total of 3768 patients were treated with acute stroke therapy across the SPOTRIAS consortium over 6 years; 3378 were treated with IV rtPA alone and 808 with IAT (383 with ETA and 425 with BT). Baseline demographics were similar between the different treatment groups as outlined in Table 1. Patients were predominantly white non-Hispanic with approximately 50% males. The proportion of all patients treated with IV rtPA who were ≥80 years was 34.2% and varied significantly between the centers (19.4%–50.4%, P<0.0001). In comparison, 23% of patients in the IAT group were >80 years (21.9% in ETA group and 24% in BT group; Table 1). Octogenarians were more likely to have severe strokes (NIHSS ≥12; 64.9% versus 48.4%, P<0.0001) and were less likely to receive BT (9.5% versus 14.5%, P<0.0001) when compared with younger patients. When limited to those patients with an NIHSS ≥12, patients ≥80 years were less likely to receive IAT (12.8% versus 24.6%, P<0.0001). Overall, a total of 431 (12.1%) deaths were reported and 2412 (64.0%) patients were not discharged home.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline Demographics: Patients Treated Across the SPOTRIAS Consortium Between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010

In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients Aged >80 Years Compared With Younger Patients

Patients ≥80 years treated with IV rtPA alone had a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (Model 3: adjusted OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.60–2.84) and of having a disposition other than home (Model 3: adjusted OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.03–3.11) compared with younger patients. Octogenarians who were treated with IAT also demonstrated increased mortality compared with younger counterparts (Model 3: adjusted OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29–3.04). Similar results were noted in patients ≥80 years versus younger counterparts for ETA (Model 3: adjusted OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.30–4.59) but not BT (Model 3: adjusted OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.91–2.98). A higher risk of not being discharged home was noted for all treatment modalities except for ETA (Model 3: adjusted OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.68–3.55). In addition, the association of disposition other than home with BT was disproportionally higher (Model 3: OR, 9.41; 95% CI, 2.64–33.6) when compared with the other treatment modalities (online-only Data Supplement Table I).

Age Influence on In-Hospital Outcomes

Univariate and multivariable analysis categorizing age as deciles revealed that the likelihood of mortality increased with age regardless of the treatment. Additionally the rate of rise in ORs was more notable at the >80-year strata in unadjusted and adjusted models (Figure 1). When IV rtPA was used, the odds of in-hospital mortality in the 80- to 89-year age strata increased 1.48 times when compared with the 70- to 79-year category after adjusting for sex, race–ethnicity, SPOTRIAS center, NIHSS, and glucose serum levels (from OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.36–4.72 to OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 2.03–6.94). Similarly, the adjusted odds of mortality increased 1.54 times when the 80- to 89-year group was compared with the 80- to 89-year strata (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.68–8.98 to OR, 6.18; 95% CI, 2.57–14.83). A similar pattern of increase was encountered when discharge disposition was used as the outcome (Figure 2).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

A–D, Age effect on in-hospital mortality in different acute stroke therapies. IV rtPA indicates intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator alone; IAT, any intra-arterial therapy; ETA, endovascular therapy alone; Ref, reference category; Unadjusted, univariate analysis; Adjusted, multivariable adjusted for sex, race–ethnicity, and Specialized Program of Translational Research in Acute Stroke (SPOTRIAS) center, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and serum glucose level.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A–D, Age effect on discharge disposition other than home in different acute stroke therapies. IV rtPA indicates intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator alone; IAT, any intra-arterial therapy; ETA, endovascular therapy alone; Ref, reference category; Unadjusted, univariate analysis; Adjusted, multivariable analysis adjusted for sex, race–ethnicity, and Specialized Program of Translational Research in Acute Stroke (SPOTRIAS) center, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and serum glucose level.

In-Hospital Outcomes Among Octogenarians Comparing Endovascular Therapy With IV rtPA

The univariate analyses showed that all endovascular therapies were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality when compared with IV rtPA (Table 2). However, in adjusted models, all of the associations were no longer significant (Model 3: IAT versus IV rtPA adjusted OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60–1.49; Model 3: BT versus IV rtPA adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.47–1.45; Model 3: ETA versus IV rtPA adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.64–2.08).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Aged >80 Y Based on Treatment Modality

Given the importance of NIHSS on the decision to proceed with IAT, we carried out further analyses only among those aged ≥80 years with an NIHSS ≥12 (n=751) and found no evidence for increased mortality. In our final models (Model 3), IAT (adjusted OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.49–1.29), BT (adjusted OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44–1.42), and ETA (adjusted OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.48–1.77) versus IV rtPA were not associated with increased mortality.

Because only 68 patients with age ≥80 years and an NIHSS ≥12 (9.1%) were discharged home, no analysis comparing the different treatment modalities was performed on this subgroup alone.

Outcomes Among Those Restricted to Arrival Within 3 Hours of Stroke Onset

An additional analysis was performed restricted to those patients who arrived <3 hours and received IV rtPA alone versus endovascular therapy alone regardless of patient age. A total of 94 patients who arrived within 3 hours received ETA. Reported exclusion reasons for IVrtPA included: age ≥80 (18), international normalized ratio >1.7 (8), abnormal platelet count (8), could not be treated within 3 hours (8), intracerebral hemorrhage history (2), elevated NIHSS (one), and no other reason listed (49). Univariate analysis revealed that ETA was associated with a greater risk of in-hospital mortality when compared with IV rtPA (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.20–6.54). These results persisted after adjusting for sex, race–ethnicity, center, and NIHSS, suggesting that ETA was associated with a greater risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 3.97; 95% CI, 2.00–7.87). Interestingly, results were similar when restricted to patients who were over aged >80 years (n=18; adjusted OR, 5.52; 95% CI, 1.24–25.0).

Discussion

This is the largest study of endovascular therapy in patients ≥80 years of age. The results of our study suggest that: (1) in-hospital outcome measured by mortality and disposition were worse in those aged ≥80 years compared with their younger counterparts; and (2) acute endovascular treatment of stroke using IAT, ETA, or BT was not associated with an increase mortality in those aged ≥80 years when compared with IV rtPA, including among those with severe strokes. In secondary analyses we also found that (1) aging is associated with mortality and being discharged other than home regardless of the treatment used; and (2) the use of endovascular therapy <3 hours without IV rtPA was associated with an increased mortality compared IV rtPA alone.

Data from the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study (SITS-MOST) registry evaluated >1000 patients aged ≥80 years who received IV rtPA and compared outcomes with younger patients. In keeping with our results, the authors reported a higher mortality and a worse 3-month functional outcomes in older versus younger patients. These findings are consistent with the overall worse prognosis in this age group regardless of treatment offered.28 Part of this effect may be due to the presence of a higher prestroke functional disability, more medical comorbidities,29,30 or a baseline risk of neurological complications such as infarct expansion. Nonetheless, an independent effect of age on outcomes is noted in these studies and could reflect further unmeasured confounders, a particular susceptibility to ischemic brain injury, or poor development of collaterals.31 The risks for hemorrhagic conversion and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, on the other hand, do not appear to be higher among octogenarians.32,33 Several case series have documented a lower probability of a good neurological outcome at discharge or at 90 days using endovascular therapy among those aged >80 years compared with their younger counterparts.16,24,25 In our study, however, we showed that in-hospital mortality associated with endovascular therapies was not different in patients aged >80 years using control subjects of the same age group and after adjustment for pretreatment NIHSS.

Our results are also unique in comparing IV rtPA treatment with a small sample of patients who were treated with ETA despite arriving within 3 hours of stroke onset. We noted in this group that ETA led to poorer outcomes despite having adjusted for stroke severity. The principal reasons for exclusion from IV rtPA were age and coagulopathy. Interestingly, results remained the same when the comparison was performed among patients aged >80 years, stressing the point IV rtPA remains gold standard for acute stroke treatment. Although there may be unmeasured confounders that could contribute to the difference in outcome, our results caution against proceeding with ETA without first administering IV rtPA to eligible patients.

Our study has several weaknesses that should be considered. First, no information regarding time from stroke onset to treatment, multimodal imaging, or recanalization was collected. Faster treatment may have resulted in better recanalization, and those with proximal occlusions and larger penumbra based on multimodal imaging may have been more likely to be treated with endovascular therapy, leading to a bias toward better outcomes in this group. Second, we did not systematically collect data on symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, procedural complications, or detailed premorbid functional status. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage is associated with significant morbidity and mortality that could have skewed our results against endovascular therapy; on the other hand, we did not find an increased risk of death. In addition, data on premorbid functional status were only collected at 6 sites and overall in less than half of all patients. We did not have additional information on medical comorbidities, premorbid frailty, or dementia, which are likely to contribute to poststroke outcomes and treatment selection bias. Lastly, we did not collect 90-day outcomes such as the modified Rankin Scale, which is considered a standard outcome for stroke studies. However, given that our focus was on identifying negative outcomes related to each treatment modality, these are unlikely to change dramatically after hospital discharge because improvement is expected after stroke.

Our findings suggest that endovascular therapy among patients >80 years does not increase in-hospital mortality when compared with patients of the same age receiving only IV rtPA. Advance age increases the likelihood of poor outcome regardless of the treatment, however, particularly in the transition from the seventh to the eighth decade. In addition, we found increased mortality among patients who received endovascular treatment <3 hours when IV rtPA was contraindicated, suggesting that endovascular treatment might not benefit everyone. Whether older patients should ultimately be treated with endovascular therapy with or without IV rtPA can only be answered through a clinical trial. These trials should recruit participants aged >80 years and include clinical variables that may influence outcomes in this age group including frailty and cognition measures and a complete assessment of comorbidities. In the interim our data would suggest that these patients can be safely enrolled. The routine clinical use of IAT, especially in this age group, however, remains as of yet experimental.

Sources of Funding

SPOTRIAS is funded by the National Institutes of Neurological Diseases and Stroke (NINDS P50 NS049060). Dr Willey was funded by NINDS 1K23 NS 073104-01A1 and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Loan Repayment Program (AG 31009). This work was funded in part by the Intramural Division of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke/NIH.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

SPOTRIAS sites: Columbia University, New York, NY (Randolph Marshall, Principal Investigator [PI]); University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (Joseph Broderick, PI); Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD (Steven Warach, PI); Washington University, St Louis, MO (Colin Derdeyn, PI); Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (Karen Furie, PI); University of Texas–Houston, Houston, TX (James Grotta, PI); University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA (Jeffrey Saver, PI); and University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (Brett C. Meyer, PI).

Footnotes

  • Continuing medical education (CME) credit is available for this article. Go to http://cme.ahajournals.org to take the quiz.

  • The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at http://stroke.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.660993/-/DC1.

  • Received April 16, 2012.
  • Revision received May 10, 2012.
  • Accepted May 11, 2012.
  • © 2012 American Heart Association, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rosamond W,
    2. Flegal K,
    3. Furie K,
    4. Go A,
    5. Greenlund K,
    6. Haase N,
    7. et al
    . Heart disease and stroke statistics—2008 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2008;117:e25–e146.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lindley RI,
    2. Wardlaw JM,
    3. Sandercock PA
    . Thrombolysis in elderly people. Observational data insufficient to change treatment. BMJ. 2011;342:d306; author reply d312.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fonarow GC,
    2. Smith EE,
    3. Saver JL,
    4. Reeves MJ,
    5. Bhatt DL,
    6. Grau-Sepulveda MV,
    7. et al
    . Timeliness of tissue-type plasminogen activator therapy in acute ischemic stroke: patient characteristics, hospital factors, and outcomes associated with door-to-needle times within 60 minutes. Circulation. 2011;123:750–758.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hacke W,
    2. Kaste M,
    3. Bluhmki E,
    4. Brozman M,
    5. Davalos A,
    6. Guidetti D,
    7. et al
    . Thrombolysis with alteplase 3 to 4.5 hours after acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1317–1329.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Furlan A,
    2. Higashida R,
    3. Wechsler L,
    4. Gent M,
    5. Rowley H,
    6. Kase C,
    7. et al
    . Intra-arterial prourokinase for acute ischemic stroke. The PROACT II study: a randomized controlled trial. Prolyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism. JAMA. 1999;282:2003–2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. van Oostenbrugge RJ,
    2. Hupperts RM,
    3. Lodder J
    . Thrombolysis for acute stroke with special emphasis on the very old: experience from a single Dutch centre. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77:375–377.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Engelter ST,
    2. Bonati LH,
    3. Lyrer PA
    . Intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients of > or =80 versus <80 years of age—a systematic review across cohort studies. Age Ageing. 2006;35:572–580.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Simon JE,
    2. Sandler DL,
    3. Pexman JH,
    4. Hill MD,
    5. Buchan AM
    . Is intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) safe for use in patients over 80 years old with acute ischaemic stroke? The Calgary experience. Age Ageing. 2004;33:143–149.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Berrouschot J,
    2. Rother J,
    3. Glahn J,
    4. Kucinski T,
    5. Fiehler J,
    6. Thomalla G
    . Outcome and severe hemorrhagic complications of intravenous thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator in very old (> or =80 years) stroke patients. Stroke. 2005;36:2421–2425.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Mouradian MS,
    2. Senthilselvan A,
    3. Jickling G,
    4. McCombe JA,
    5. Emery DJ,
    6. Dean N,
    7. et al
    . Intravenous rtPA for acute stroke: comparing its effectiveness in younger and older patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:1234–1237.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Meretoja A,
    2. Putaala J,
    3. Tatlisumak T,
    4. Atula S,
    5. Artto V,
    6. Curtze S,
    7. et al
    . Off-label thrombolysis is not associated with poor outcome in patients with stroke. Stroke. 2010;41:1450–1458.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bhatnagar P,
    2. Sinha D,
    3. Parker RA,
    4. Guyler P,
    5. O'Brien A
    . Intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis to aid decision making in patients over 80 years of age. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82:712–717.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Chen CI,
    2. Iguchi Y,
    3. Grotta JC,
    4. Garami Z,
    5. Uchino K,
    6. Shaltoni H,
    7. et al
    . Intravenous tPA for very old stroke patients. Eur Neurol. 2005;54:140–144.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Engelter ST,
    2. Reichhart M,
    3. Sekoranja L,
    4. Georgiadis D,
    5. Baumann A,
    6. Weder B,
    7. et al
    . Thrombolysis in stroke patients aged 80 years and older: Swiss survey of IV thrombolysis. Neurology. 2005;65:1795–1798.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Toni D,
    2. Lorenzano S,
    3. Agnelli G,
    4. Guidetti D,
    5. Orlandi G,
    6. Semplicini A,
    7. et al
    . Intravenous thrombolysis with rtPA in acute ischemic stroke patients aged older than 80 years in Italy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;25:129–135.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Zeevi N,
    2. Chhabra J,
    3. Silverman IE,
    4. Lee NS,
    5. McCullough LD
    . Acute stroke management in the elderly. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23:304–308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sylaja PN,
    2. Dong W,
    3. Grotta JC,
    4. Miller MK,
    5. Tomita K,
    6. Hamilton S,
    7. et al
    . Safety outcomes of alteplase among acute ischemic stroke patients with special characteristics. Neurocrit Care. 2007;6:181–185.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ringleb PA,
    2. Schwark C,
    3. Kohrmann M,
    4. Kulkens S,
    5. Juttler E,
    6. Hacke W,
    7. et al
    . Thrombolytic therapy for acute ischaemic stroke in octogenarians: selection by magnetic resonance imaging improves safety but does not improve outcome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:690–693.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. De Keyser J,
    2. Gdovinova Z,
    3. Uyttenboogaart M,
    4. Vroomen PC,
    5. Luijckx GJ
    . Intravenous alteplase for stroke: beyond the guidelines and in particular clinical situations. Stroke. 2007;38:2612–2618.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Mishra NK,
    2. Ahmed N,
    3. Andersen G,
    4. Egido JA,
    5. Lindsberg PJ,
    6. Ringleb PA,
    7. et al
    . Thrombolysis in very elderly people: controlled comparison of SITS International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry and Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive. BMJ. 2010;341:c6046.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rtPA stroke study group. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1581–1587.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Generalized efficacy of tPA for acute stroke. Subgroup analysis of the NINDS tPA stroke trial. Stroke. 1997;28:2119–2125.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Nogueira RG,
    2. Liebeskind DS,
    3. Sung G,
    4. Duckwiler G,
    5. Smith WS
    . Predictors of good clinical outcomes, mortality, and successful revascularization in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy: pooled analysis of the Mechanical Embolus Removal in Cerebral Ischemia (MERCI) and Multi MERCI trials. Stroke. 2009;40:3777–3783.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Qureshi AI,
    2. Suri MF,
    3. Georgiadis AL,
    4. Vazquez G,
    5. Janjua NA
    . Intra-arterial recanalization techniques for patients 80 years or older with acute ischemic stroke: pooled analysis from 4 prospective studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1184–1189.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Mazighi M,
    2. Labreuche J,
    3. Meseguer E,
    4. Serfaty JM,
    5. Laissy JP,
    6. Lavallee PC,
    7. et al
    . Impact of a combined intravenous/intra-arterial approach in octogenarians. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;31:559–565.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Kim D,
    2. Ford GA,
    3. Kidwell CS,
    4. Starkman S,
    5. Vinuela F,
    6. Duckwiler GR,
    7. et al
    . Intra-arterial thrombolysis for acute stroke in patients 80 and older: a comparison of results in patients younger than 80 years. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:159–163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Sacco RL,
    2. DeRosa JT,
    3. Haley EC Jr.,
    4. Levin B,
    5. Ordronneau P,
    6. Phillips SJ,
    7. et al
    . Glycine antagonist in neuroprotection for patients with acute stroke: GAIN Americas: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285:1719–1728.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Di Carlo A,
    2. Lamassa M,
    3. Pracucci G,
    4. Basile AM,
    5. Trefoloni G,
    6. Vanni P,
    7. et al
    . Stroke in the very old: clinical presentation and determinants of 3-month functional outcome: a European perspective. European biomed study of stroke care group. Stroke. 1999;30:2313–2319.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Knoflach M,
    2. Matosevic B,
    3. Rucker M,
    4. Furtner M,
    5. Mair A,
    6. Wille G,
    7. et al
    . Functional recovery after ischemic stroke—a matter of age: data from the Austrian stroke unit registry. Neurology. 2012;78:279–285.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Sharma JC,
    2. Fletcher S,
    3. Vassallo M
    . Strokes in the elderly—higher acute and 3-month mortality—an explanation. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1999;9:2–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Liebeskind DS
    . Collateral circulation. Stroke. 2003;34:2279–2284.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ford GA,
    2. Ahmed N,
    3. Azevedo E,
    4. Grond M,
    5. Larrue V,
    6. Lindsberg PJ,
    7. et al
    . Intravenous alteplase for stroke in those older than 80 years old. Stroke. 2010;41:2568–2574.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Mono ML,
    2. Romagna L,
    3. Jung S,
    4. Arnold M,
    5. Galimanis A,
    6. Fischer U,
    7. et al
    . Intra-arterial thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke in octogenarians. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012;33:116–122.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract

Jump to

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Stroke
September 2012, Volume 43, Issue 9
  • Table of Contents
Previous ArticleNext Article

Jump to

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics

Article Tools

  • Print
  • Citation Tools
    Impact of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Patients >80 Years of Age
    Joshua Z. Willey, Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez, Nils Petersen, Pooja Khatri, Andria L. Ford, Natalia S. Rost, Latisha K. Ali, Nichole R. Gonzales, Jose G. Merino, Brett C. Meyer and Randolph S. Marshall
    Stroke. 2012;43:2369-2375, originally published August 27, 2012
    https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.660993

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
  •  Download Powerpoint
  • CME
  • Article Alerts
    Log in to Email Alerts with your email address.
  • Save to my folders

Share this Article

  • Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Stroke.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Impact of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Patients >80 Years of Age
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Stroke
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Stroke web site.
  • Share on Social Media
    Impact of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Patients >80 Years of Age
    Joshua Z. Willey, Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez, Nils Petersen, Pooja Khatri, Andria L. Ford, Natalia S. Rost, Latisha K. Ali, Nichole R. Gonzales, Jose G. Merino, Brett C. Meyer and Randolph S. Marshall
    Stroke. 2012;43:2369-2375, originally published August 27, 2012
    https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.660993
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Related Articles

Cited By...

Subjects

  • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care
  • Stroke
    • Ischemic Stroke

Stroke

  • About Stroke
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Stroke CME
  • Guidelines and Statements
  • Meeting Abstracts
  • Permissions
  • Journal Policies
  • Email Alerts
  • Open Access Information
  • AHA Journals RSS
  • AHA Newsroom

Editorial Office Address:
200 5th Avenue
Suite 1020
Waltham, MA 02451
email: stroke@strokeahajournal.org

Information for:
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Subscriber Help
  • Institutions / Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions FAQ
  • International Users
American Heart Association Learn and Live
National Center
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231

Customer Service

  • 1-800-AHA-USA-1
  • 1-800-242-8721
  • Local Info
  • Contact Us

About Us

Our mission is to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do. The need for our work is beyond question. Find Out More about the American Heart Association

  • Careers
  • SHOP
  • Latest Heart and Stroke News
  • AHA/ASA Media Newsroom

Our Sites

  • American Heart Association
  • American Stroke Association
  • For Professionals
  • More Sites

Take Action

  • Advocate
  • Donate
  • Planned Giving
  • Volunteer

Online Communities

  • AFib Support
  • Garden Community
  • Patient Support Network
  • Professional Online Network

Follow Us:

  • Follow Circulation on Twitter
  • Visit Circulation on Facebook
  • Follow Circulation on Google Plus
  • Follow Circulation on Instagram
  • Follow Circulation on Pinterest
  • Follow Circulation on YouTube
  • Rss Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Ethics Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Linking Policy
  • Diversity
  • Careers

©2018 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The American Heart Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
*Red Dress™ DHHS, Go Red™ AHA; National Wear Red Day ® is a registered trademark.

  • PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST National Health Council Standards of Excellence Certification Program
  • BBB Accredited Charity
  • Comodo Secured