Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Will delays in treatment jeopardize the populat...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Will delays in treatment jeopardize the population benefit from extending the time window for stroke thrombolysis?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Will delays in treatment jeopardize the population benefit from extending the time window for stroke thrombolysis? / Pitt, Martin ; Monks, Tom; Agarwal, Paritosh et al.
In: Stroke, Vol. 43, No. 11, 11.2012, p. 2992-2997.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Pitt, M, Monks, T, Agarwal, P, Worthington, D, Ford, G, Lees, K, Stein, K & James, M 2012, 'Will delays in treatment jeopardize the population benefit from extending the time window for stroke thrombolysis?', Stroke, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 2992-2997. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.638650

APA

Vancouver

Pitt M, Monks T, Agarwal P, Worthington D, Ford G, Lees K et al. Will delays in treatment jeopardize the population benefit from extending the time window for stroke thrombolysis? Stroke. 2012 Nov;43(11):2992-2997. Epub 2012 Sept 25. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.638650

Author

Pitt, Martin ; Monks, Tom ; Agarwal, Paritosh et al. / Will delays in treatment jeopardize the population benefit from extending the time window for stroke thrombolysis?. In: Stroke. 2012 ; Vol. 43, No. 11. pp. 2992-2997.

Bibtex

@article{8343a4371cd146a3a3a59647ee797571,
title = "Will delays in treatment jeopardize the population benefit from extending the time window for stroke thrombolysis?",
abstract = "Background and Purpose—Pooled analyses show benefits of intravenous alteplase (recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator) treatment for acute ischemic stroke up to 4.5 hours after onset despite marketing approval for up to 3 hours. However, the benefit from thrombolysis is critically time-dependent and if extending the time window reduces treatment urgency, this could reduce the population benefit from any extension. Methods—Based on 3830 UK patients registered between 2005 to 2010 in the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke–International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry (SITS-ISTR), a Monte Carlo simulation was used to model recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator treatment up to 4·5 hours from onset and assess the impact (numbers surviving with little or no disability) from changes in hospital treatment times associated with this extended time window. Results—We observed a significant relation between time remaining to treat and time taken to treat in the UK SITS-ISTR data set after adjustment for censoring. Simulation showed that as this “deadline effect” increases, an extended treatment time window entails that an increasing number of patients are treated at a progressively lower absolute benefit to a point where the population benefit from extending the time window is entirely negated. Conclusions—Despite the benefit for individual patients treated up to 4.5 hours after onset, the population benefit may be reduced or lost altogether if extending the time window results in more patients being treated but at a lower absolute benefit. A universally applied reduction in hospital arrival to treatment times of 8 minutes would confer a population benefit as large as the time window extension. ",
keywords = "emergency care, simulation, thrombolysis",
author = "Martin Pitt and Tom Monks and Paritosh Agarwal and David Worthington and Gary Ford and Kennedy Lees and Ken Stein and Martin James",
year = "2012",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.638650",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "2992--2997",
journal = "Stroke",
issn = "0039-2499",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Will delays in treatment jeopardize the population benefit from extending the time window for stroke thrombolysis?

AU - Pitt, Martin

AU - Monks, Tom

AU - Agarwal, Paritosh

AU - Worthington, David

AU - Ford, Gary

AU - Lees, Kennedy

AU - Stein, Ken

AU - James, Martin

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - Background and Purpose—Pooled analyses show benefits of intravenous alteplase (recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator) treatment for acute ischemic stroke up to 4.5 hours after onset despite marketing approval for up to 3 hours. However, the benefit from thrombolysis is critically time-dependent and if extending the time window reduces treatment urgency, this could reduce the population benefit from any extension. Methods—Based on 3830 UK patients registered between 2005 to 2010 in the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke–International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry (SITS-ISTR), a Monte Carlo simulation was used to model recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator treatment up to 4·5 hours from onset and assess the impact (numbers surviving with little or no disability) from changes in hospital treatment times associated with this extended time window. Results—We observed a significant relation between time remaining to treat and time taken to treat in the UK SITS-ISTR data set after adjustment for censoring. Simulation showed that as this “deadline effect” increases, an extended treatment time window entails that an increasing number of patients are treated at a progressively lower absolute benefit to a point where the population benefit from extending the time window is entirely negated. Conclusions—Despite the benefit for individual patients treated up to 4.5 hours after onset, the population benefit may be reduced or lost altogether if extending the time window results in more patients being treated but at a lower absolute benefit. A universally applied reduction in hospital arrival to treatment times of 8 minutes would confer a population benefit as large as the time window extension.

AB - Background and Purpose—Pooled analyses show benefits of intravenous alteplase (recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator) treatment for acute ischemic stroke up to 4.5 hours after onset despite marketing approval for up to 3 hours. However, the benefit from thrombolysis is critically time-dependent and if extending the time window reduces treatment urgency, this could reduce the population benefit from any extension. Methods—Based on 3830 UK patients registered between 2005 to 2010 in the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke–International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry (SITS-ISTR), a Monte Carlo simulation was used to model recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator treatment up to 4·5 hours from onset and assess the impact (numbers surviving with little or no disability) from changes in hospital treatment times associated with this extended time window. Results—We observed a significant relation between time remaining to treat and time taken to treat in the UK SITS-ISTR data set after adjustment for censoring. Simulation showed that as this “deadline effect” increases, an extended treatment time window entails that an increasing number of patients are treated at a progressively lower absolute benefit to a point where the population benefit from extending the time window is entirely negated. Conclusions—Despite the benefit for individual patients treated up to 4.5 hours after onset, the population benefit may be reduced or lost altogether if extending the time window results in more patients being treated but at a lower absolute benefit. A universally applied reduction in hospital arrival to treatment times of 8 minutes would confer a population benefit as large as the time window extension.

KW - emergency care

KW - simulation

KW - thrombolysis

U2 - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.638650

DO - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.638650

M3 - Journal article

VL - 43

SP - 2992

EP - 2997

JO - Stroke

JF - Stroke

SN - 0039-2499

IS - 11

ER -