PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11092088

Thrombolysis.

Abstract

The most widely studied thrombolytic drugs in stroke have been streptokinase (SK) and alteplase. The three large trials with streptokinase were terminated prematurely. The combined results reveal an early increased risk of cerebral haemorrhage and death, with no net benefit at final follow-up, even in subgroups. Some controversy persists, however. The dose may have been inappropriately high, very early treatment has not been fully tested, and concomitant use of aspirin or heparin may have contributed to the deleterious effect. Even so, there is no evidence to guide the choice of a lower dose, streptokinase predisposes to a prolonged anticoagulant effect, and is associated with hypotension which may offset any benefit. The four large alteplase trials in acute stroke were more encouraging. The NINDS study was clearly positive and supporting evidence comes from the two ECASS trials when subjected to meta-analysis. The trials have shown additional functional recovery in 0.6% of patients receiving SK within 6 h and in 7.6% with alteplase, at the expense of excess mortality of 1.1% for alteplase and 11.7% for SK. There was an absolute cerebral haemorrhage excess of 10.7% with SK and 8% for alteplase. If alteplase use is restricted to < 3 h from stroke onset, the NNT is 10.7 with no excess mortality; later treatment (3-6 h) gives an NNT of 26 and absolute mortality of 3.4%. Finally, early fibrinogen depletion with ancrod also appears to have beneficial effects when treatment is started within 3 h of stroke onset. Further trials are still required to establish, inter alia, the outer limit of the therapeutic window, to identify sub-groups of patients in whom clear benefit (or harm) exists and to establish appropriate management protocols for concomitant treatment. Thrombolysis with alteplase within 3 h of stroke onset may be considered for patients in whom haemorrhage and established infarction have been excluded. Trained assessment is essential, since there is an increased risk of haemorrhagic conversion that may be fatal. Patients considering thrombolytic treatment should appreciate that 1 in 10 patients have improved outcome, 1 in 20 suffer haemorrhagic conversion and 1 in 100 may die as a result of treatment. Treatment much later than 3 h from stroke onset in unselected patients is as likely to kill as to cure.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K R Lees. 2000. Thrombolysis.. https://doi.org/10.1258/0007142001903030

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗