Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Health Policy - Use of IV tPA for Acute Ischemic Strokes


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Has the "Cure" for Diabetes Been Kept from You? ★★★
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Dating for everyone is here: ❤❤❤ ❤❤❤
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Dating direct: ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Health Policy - Use of IV tPA for Acute Ischemic Strokes

  1. 1. Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) & IV tPA   Integrative Health Policy College of Human Medicine Michigan State University April 4, 2012   Zach Jarou, Juan Rango, Nate Harris, Samantha Shaw,Eric Bracken, Nakia Hunter, Ahmed Hozain, Danielle Chang
  2. 2. US Stroke Burden: Mortality● 3rd leading cause of mortality in US ● 1 out of every 18 deaths ● one stroke death every 4 minutes ● nearly 1 out of 10 45-65 year old patients die within 30 days (AHA 2011)
  3. 3. US Stroke Burden: Disability● mortality aside, strokes are the leading cause of severe, long-term adult disability ● Framingham Heart Study ○ AIS survivors, 65+ yo, 6 months after event ○ 50% = some evidence of hemiparesis ○ 30% = unable to walk without assistance ○ 19% = aphasia ○ 26% = institutionalized (Wechsler 2011)
  4. 4. US Stroke Financial Burden: Costs (2007) ● total = $40.9 billion ○ direct (medical) = $25.2 billion ○ indirect = $15.7 billion   ● mean lifetime cost of AIS ~$140,048(AHA 2011,Image from Scientific American)
  5. 5. US Stroke Burden: Incidence● new stroke case every 40 seconds ● ~795,000 cases per year in total ○ 610,000 first attacks; 185,000 recurrent ● 87% are ischemic (in situ thrombosis, embolism, systemic hypoperfusion) ○ 10% intracerebral hemorrhage ○ 3% subarachnoid hemorrhage  (AHA 2011)
  6. 6. Treatment: A Unique Opportunitystrokes are the only neurologicdisorder for which physicians arepotentially able to completely reversedisabling deficits (Lyden 2008) 
  7. 7. Current Use of tPA for AIS● Currently, only 1-8% of all AIS patients are treated with tPA ● first approved by FDA in 1996 for treatment of AIS within 3 hours of symptom onset based on results of NINDS study ● contraindicated in hemorrhagic strokes or head trauma  (Huisa 2011)
  8. 8. Risk of tPA Use = symptomatic ICH● Usually occur within 24-36h after thrombolysis (ICH after 36h considered unrelated to tPA)● Typically occurs in the core of the infarction (suggests ischemia itself plays a role)● NINDS sICH rates ○ tPA = 6.4%, placebo = 0.6% ○ sICH mortality rate = 47% ○ mortality rate still lower in tPA group compared to placebo group (17% vs. 21%) due to reduction in death not related to hemorrhage (Derex 2008)
  9. 9. Risk of tPA Use = symptomatic ICH● sICH risk factors ○ longer onset-to-treatment ○ dosing ○ age ■ >80 yo = 3x risk of sICH ■ >90 yo = 2x risk sICH/mortality of 80 yo ○ hypertension (during first 24 hours) ○ hyperglycemia ■ >200mg/dL = increased risk (25% sICH rate) ■ >400mg/dL = contraindication  (Derex 2008)
  10. 10. Risk of tPA Use = symptomatic ICH● sICH risk factors (continued) ○ severe stroke (NIHSS score > 20 = 11x risk) ○ early CT changes (4x risk if EIC > than 1/3 MCA) ○ moderate to severe leukoaraiosis (white matter hyperdensities on imaging not related to any specific pathology) on MRI (OR 2.9) ○ previous anticoagulant therapy ■ antiplatelets (Hallevi 2008) ● 1.9 OR sICH, yet still associated w/2 OR favorable outcome ■ warfarin (Parbhakaran 2010) ● 10x risk despite INR < 1.7 (Derex 2008)  
  11. 11. Our Positions (tPA for AIS)1. increase public education ○ risk factors & warning signs ○ time-sensitive treatment window   2. support allowing tPA administration for AIS up to 4.5 hours after onset of symptoms if eligibility criteria met  
  12. 12. Position #1 = Public Education
  13. 13. Position #1 = Public Education● delay in seeking medical attention after AIS is the most important reason for low rates of tPA use (excludes up to 73% of patients) ● ~1/3 people can not name a single risk factor or warning sign of a stroke ● only 9% of surveyed patients aware of time- sensitive treatment window from onset of stroke symptoms  (Barber 2001, Kleindorfer 2009)
  14. 14. Position #2 = Allow Up To 4.5 Hours● NINDS (1995) ○ first study to show efficacy of tPA for AIS when administered in less than 3 hours ○ no difference at 24 hours but treatment group showed benefit at 90 days (OR = 1.7)● ECASS III (2008) ○ verified NINDS, also demonstrated efficacy between 3-4.5 hours (OR = 1.3)● Smaller studies will also be mentioned in terms of pooled analysis
  15. 15. Similarities - NINDS & ECASS III● both are randomized, placebo-controlled trials showing favorable outcomes at 90 days post-tPA treatment using a modified Rankin Scale of disability (0 = none, 6 = death), favorable outcome = mRS 0 or 1 ● both excluded patients with mild or rapidly improving strokes yet failed to clearly define this threshold in terms of NIHSS scores  (Huisa 2011)
  16. 16. Differences = NINDS & ECASS III● NINDS = broad generalizability ○ included all patients >18 years old  ● ECASS III = limited generalizability, excluded: ○ >80 years old ○ severe stroke (NIHSS > 25 or hypodensity of >1/3 MCA on CT) ○ those taking anticoagulants (regardless of INR) ○ history of both stroke and diabetes  
  17. 17. Have other studies supported the4.5-hour ECASS III cutoff window?● Alone No, Pooled YES! (Lansberg, July 2009) ○ allowed tPA up to 6 hours after stroke onset ○ only 14% were treated within 3 hours● Pooling doubles the available sample size between 3- 4.5 hours (from 821 to 1622)● Pooled OR the same as ECASS III OR (1.3)
  18. 18. Have other studies supported the4.5-hour ECASS III cutoff window?● On their own, ECASS I, ECASS II, & ATLANTIS have wide confidence intervals and high p-values● Pooled analysis yields similar OR as ECASS III alone but with a smaller p-value 
  19. 19. Timing is everything! = ECASS III data should not suggest a leisurely approach to tPA administration, every minute counts (Leyden 2008) Saver 2010
  20. 20. (Lansberg, June 2009) NNT and NNH are inverselyTiming is everything! proportional OTT NNT NNH 0 to 1.5 hrs 3.6 < 65 (3.1-4.2) (38-111) 1.5 to 3 hrs 4.3 < 38 (3.6-5.3) (24-61) 3 to 4.5 hrs 5.9 < 30 (4.3-8.2) (20-45) 4.5 to 6 hrs 19.3 > 14 (12.0-31.0) (10.5-17.8)
  21. 21. How Do Our Positions Compare?● AHA ○ 2007 = supported 3 hour window if eligibility criteria met ○ 2009 = added 3-4.5 hour window with additional exclusion criteria  ● AAEM ○ 2002 = following NINDS, should not be considered standard of care given lack of supporting clinical trials ○ 2010 = following ECASS III, acknowledge it is one treatment option when given in academic centers & primary stroke centers  ● ACEP ○ 2002 = endorse use when administered according to NINDS guidelines (Wechsler 2011)
  22. 22. Alternative Positions● allow the use of tPA for mild strokes● allow the use of tPA for rapidly improving strokes● restrict use of tPA to academic/primary stroke centers only● no time limit for treatment (buyer beware)
  23. 23. Mild or Rapidly Improving Strokes● these are the most common, subjective, poorly- defined reasons for non-treatment  1/3 of time eligible patients excluded Smith 2011
  24. 24. tPA for Rapidly Improving Strokes● initial NINDS draft stated exclusion for rapidly improving "major" symptoms, this qualifier was controversially removed during editing ● reanalysis of NINDS using 3 objective definitions for rapid improvement ○ >4 NIHSS points (OR 1.83, 1.22-2.75) ○ >25% improvement (OR 2.02, 1.35-3.02) ○ >50% improvement (OR 1.99, 1.33-2.97)   ● favorable treatment effect with all 3 definitions, therefore tPA not contraindicated ISC Abstracts 2011, #145
  25. 25. tPA for Mild Strokes● to patients, theres no such thing as a "mild stroke"● disability is very common even w/NIHSS <= 5 ○ 28.3% not discharged home ○ 28.5% not able to ambulate w/o help at discharge Smith 2011
  26. 26. tPA for Mild Strokes● no large studies have been performed to conclusively determine tPA benefit for mild strokes● if tPA as effective for minor strokes as in serious strokes: ○ up to 3700 fewer patients would be disabled ○ potential annual disability savings of $200 million● funding currently being sought for PRISMS trial (Potential of rtPA for Ischemic Strokes with Mild Symptoms) ISC Abstracts 2011, #47
  27. 27. Restrict Use to Academic &Primary Stroke Centers● community hospitals may have difficulty accessing neurological expertise and fear of sICH ● Neuro consults not associated with decreased protocol compliance; best to avoid Tx delays (Meurer 2010) ● deviations from protocols lead to poor outcomes, Cleveland-study: ○ 50% deviation --> 15.7% rate of sICH ○ 19% deviation --> 6.4% rate of sICH (~NINDS) (Bruce 2011)
  28. 28. Restrict Use to Academic &Primary Stroke Centers● routing of AIS patients to stroke centers increases tPA administration rates >10% ● BUT, are the post-tPA outcomes better? ○ retrospective, observational study of outcomes in 4 SE MI EDs over 9 years showed no difference in outcomes (mortality, sICH, functional) when tPA was given without dedicated thrombolytic stroke teams (Scott 2010) ○ telestroke resources are also now available for community hospitals lacking in-house expertise (Alexandrov 2005)
  29. 29. No Time Limit for tPA Administration● should we let the buyer beware? NO! first do no harm (lots of evidence for not exceeding 4.5 hour treatment window) ● "patient autonomy is not a trump card" ● "turning physicians into technicians that perform whatever patients wish systematically devalues their expert judgement & the integrity of medicine as a whole" (Minkoff 2004)
  30. 30. Economics of tPA Use● Actual cost per dose of tPA: $2200● Net savings to society per dose: $6074 (Johnston 2010)● t-PA treatment results in an incremental cost savings of $8000 per QALY gained● A 5% increase in tPA use nationwide would result in: ○ 30,000 more patients/yr receiving this treatment ○ Net cost savings of more than $100 million annually (Demaerschalk 2010, Fagan et al 1998) 
  31. 31. Economics of tPA Use● tPA vs. thrombectomy (Mayor 2009) ○ thrombectomy devices lack efficacy data (only show recanalization rates, not outcomes in terms of residual disability on mRS) ○ FDA approves devices differently from drugs, must only show safety, not efficacy "least burdensome rule" ○ payments for thrombectomy range from $19,210 to $28,087 (without or with major complications), compared with $8,408 to $15,945 for thrombolytic treatment (without or with major complications)
  32. 32. Legal Aspects of tPA Use malpractice is a major concern of most physicians,however most cases related to the use of tPA for AIS are due to failure to treat, not adverseevents such as sICH (Bruce 2011, Image from
  33. 33. Ethics of tPA Use: Shared Decisions● 91% preferred shared decision-making ● 93% of patients wished to receive detailed information on risks & benefits of tPA  ● patient acceptance rates by severity ○ 9% = mild stroke ○ 87% = moderately severe ○ 97% = severe (Slot 2009, Image from
  34. 34. Ethics of tPA Use: Informed Consent● complex risk-benefit profile should be thoroughly discussed● surrogate consent may be necessary● barriers may include ○ time constraints ○ intellectual and emotional factors in an emergency context ○ neurologic deficits ○ aphasia (White-Bateman 2007, Image from
  35. 35. Ethics of tPA Use:Racial-Ethnic Disparities● less use of EMS, delayed arrivals to ED, longer ED wait times● less likely to receive tPA for AIS● increased mortality rates from AIS● lack awareness of stroke risk factors, warning signs, & need (Cruz-Flores 2011, Image for urgent treatment from
  36. 36. Our Positions (tPA for AIS)1. increase public education ○ risk factors & warning signs ○ time-sensitive treatment window  2. support allowing tPA administration for AIS up to 4.5 hours after onset of symptoms if eligibility criteria met  
  37. 37. Questions?
  38. 38. ReferencesAHA Statistical Update Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics Circulation 2011;123:e18-e209 Alexandrov et al. Houston Paramedic and Emergency Stroke Treatment andOutcome Study Stroke 2005; 36:1512-1518 Barber et al. Why are stroke patients excluded from TPA therapy? Amamalysis of patient eligibility. Neurology 2001; 56:1015-1020 Bruce NT, Neil WP, Zivin JA. Medico-legal aspects of using tissue plasminogenactivator in acute ischemic stroke. Current Treatment Options inCardiovascular Medicine 2011;13:233-239 Cruz-Flores S, Rabinstein A, Biller J, et al. Racial-ethnic disparities in strokecare: the American experience: a statement for healthcare professionals fromthe American Heart Associaton/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2011;42:2091-2116 
  39. 39. ReferencesDemaerschalk BM, Hwang H-M, Leung G. Cost analysis review of strokecenters, telestroke, and rt-PA. American Journal of Managed Care 2010;16:537-544 Derex L, Nighoghossian N. Intracerebral haemorrhage after thrombolysis foracute ischemic stroke: anupdate. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2008;79:1093-1099 Huisa et al. Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Patients with MinorIschemic Stroke. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 2011;03:009 International Stroke Conference Oral Presentations. Stroke 2011; 42:e42-e110 Johnston SC. The economic case for new stroke thrombolytics. Stroke 2010;41:S59-S62 Kleindorfer et al. Temporal Trends in Public Awareness of Stroke Warning Signs, Risk Factors, and Treatment. Stroke 2009; 40:2502-2506 
  40. 40. ReferencesKleindorfer et al. Temporal Trends in Public Awareness of Stroke WarningSigns, Risk Factors, and Treatment. Stroke 2009; 40:2502-2506 Lansberg MG, Bluhmki E, Thijs VN. Efficacy and safety of tissue plasminogenactivator 3 to 4.5 hours after acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke2009;40:2438-2441 Lyden P. Thrombolytic therapy for acute stroke – not a moment to lose. NewEngland Journal of Medicine 2008;359:1393-1395 Meurer et al. Lack of Association Between Pretreatment NeurologyConsultation and Subsequent Protocol Deviation in Tissue PlasminogenActivator-Treated Patients With Stroke. Stroke 2010; 41(9):2098-2101 Mayor S. Devices and drugs for stroke: why do regulations differ? LancetNeurology 2009;8:982-983 
  41. 41. ReferencesMinkoff et al. Ethical dimensions of elective primary cesarean delivery.Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004 Feb; 103(2):387-92 Scott PA, Frederiksen SM, Kalbfleisch JD, et al. Safety of intravenousthrombolytic use in four emergency departments without acute stroketeams. Academic Emergency Medicine 2010;17:1062-1071 Slot et al. Thrombolytic Treatment for Stroke: Patient Preferences forTreatment, Information, and Involvement. Journal of Stroke andCerebrovascular Diseases 2009;18(1):17-22 Smith EE, Fonarow GC, Reeves MJ, et al. Outcomes in mild or rapidlyimproving stroke not treated with intravenous recombinant tissue-typeplasminogen activator: findings from Get With the Guidelines-Stroke. Stroke2011;42:3110-3115 
  42. 42. References Wechsler LR. Intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke2011;364:2138-2146 White-Bateman SR, Schumacher C, Sacco RL, et al. Consent for intravenousthrombolysis in acute stroke. Review and future directions. Archives ofNeurology 2007;64:785-792