Search

Patients aged 80 years and older were often excluded or underrepresented in pivotal endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) trials. Accordingly, trends in frequency, outcomes, and disparities of EVT use merit close analysis.To delineate temporal trends in EVT use, outcomes, and disparities among patients with acute ischemic stroke aged 80 years and older vs those younger than 80 years.A US nationwide retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data was conducted in patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke between April 1, 2012, and June 30, 2019. Data were obtained from hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) program, which is a stroke quality improvement registry, with data collected prospectively, sponsored by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Data analysis was conducted from November 2, 2020, to June 25, 2021.Potentially eligible for EVT based on arrival within 6 hours and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score greater than or equal to 6.Efficacy outcomes included discharge to home, independent ambulation at discharge, and functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at discharge. Safety outcomes included in-hospital mortality, combined in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.Among 302 965 patients with ischemic stroke meeting study criteria as potentially eligible for EVT admitted to 614 GWTG-Stroke hospitals, 14.0% (42 422) received EVT (21 634 women [51.0%]), including 10.7% (12 768 of 119 453) of patients aged 80 years and older (median [IQR] age, 85 [82-89] years) and 16.2% (29 654 of 183 512) of patients younger than 80 years (median [IQR] age, 65 [56-73] years). Among patients aged 80 years and older, EVT rates increased substantially during the study period, from 3.3% in early 2012 to 20.8% in early 2019. By study end, the relative rate of EVT among eligible patients aged 80 years and older compared with those younger than 80 years increased from 0.49 (3.3% vs 6.7%) to 0.76 (20.8% vs 27.3%). Older patients had worse outcomes at discharge compared with younger patients, including discharge to home: 12.5% vs 31.1% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.40-0.46), functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2): 10.9% vs 26.6% (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.41-0.49), and inpatient death or discharge to hospice, 34.5% vs 16.1% (aOR, 2.22; 95% CI, 2.09-2.36). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates did not differ significantly (6.9% vs 6.5%; aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.14).In this cohort study, use of EVT among individuals aged 80 years and older increased substantially from 2012 to 2019, although the rate remained lower than in younger patients. Although favorable functional outcomes at discharge were lower and combined mortality or discharge to hospice was higher in the older patients, the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was not increased.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental gap between clinical prevention and self-management awareness heightens the risk for stroke recurrence in approximately one-fourth of the highest risk stroke survivors annually. Secondary stroke prevention has the potential to be promoted by mobile health (mHealth) applications for effective real-world adoption of vascular risk factor mitigation. This scoping review aims to evaluate the impact of mHealth interventions and their effectiveness to reduce recurrent stroke rates among stroke survivors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Scoping review in Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus for RCT literature employing mHealth among stroke populations published in English from 2010 to November 19, 2020. Small or pilot studies that included randomized design were included. RESULTS: A total of 352 abstracts met inclusion criteria; 31 full-text articles were assessed and 18 unique RCTs involving 1,453 patients ultimately fulfilled criteria. Twelve of 18 met the pre-defined primary outcome measure, including 2 studies evaluating feasibility. Eight of 18 only addressed recovery from index stroke deficits. Most outcomes focused on self-reported functional status, mood, quality of life or compliance with intervention; primary outcome was an objective metric in 4/18 (blood pressure readings, step number, obstructive sleep apnea support compliance). Intervention duration 2–12 months, with a median 9 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: No high-quality evidence supporting mHealth applications to reduce recurrent stroke was found in this scoping review. Overall, most studies were relatively small, heterogenous, and employed subjective primary outcome measures. mHealth’s potential as an effective tool for stroke stakeholders to reduce recurrent stroke rates has not been sufficiently demonstrated in this review. Future randomized studies are needed that explicitly evaluate stroke recurrence rate.

Background: Although not without its limitations, warfarin has provided essential protection against cardioembolic stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) for over 60 years. Dabigatran, the first oral direct thrombin inhibitor to be approved in the United States is reputed to provide the same or better ischemic stroke protection with reduced risk of intracranial hemorrhage. However, it remains to be seen whether its promise will be borne out in everyday practice. Objective: Track initial dabigatran course in patients at Mayo Clinic Arizona and regional stroke centers since its approval in 2010. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all dabigatran patients between October 2010 and September 2011. Regional practices were obtained from a nationwide survey of cardiologists and neurologists. Results: See table Conclusion: During our period of review, dabigatran was well tolerated. A smaller than expected number of patients discontinued the agent or experienced adverse events, as compared to randomized controlled trial predictions. Furthermore, rates of ischemic events (2/159 or 1.26%) were exceedingly low. Our study had several limitations (retrospective review; random bias, sample bias with low numbers and a more elderly population, shorter median follow up). Many of these shortcomings could be addressed with prospective patient tracking. As with any novel therapy, provider surveys afforded an important window into real world practices and perceptions regarding dabigatran. The majority believed it was a reasonable alternative to warfarin, citing fluctuating INR’s as the most persuasive target population followed by patient preference. Cost was an important limiting factor to prescription and considerable uncertainty remains surrounding reversibility and how to approach acute thrombolysis in recurrent ischemic stroke.