Anyone else see this facile article on tPA in the New York Times?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

GaBulldog

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
15
Reaction score
13
For Many Strokes, There’s an Effective Treatment. Why Aren’t Some Doctors Offering It?

It was one of those findings that would change medicine, Dr. Christopher Lewandowski thought.

For years, doctors had tried — and failed — to find a treatment that would preserve the brains of stroke patients. The task was beginning to seem hopeless: Once a clot blocked a blood vessel supplying the brain, its cells quickly began to die. Patients and their families could only pray that the damage would not be too extensive.

But then a large federal clinical trial proved that a so-called clot-buster drug, tissue plasminogen activator (T.P.A.), could prevent brain injury after a stroke by opening up the blocked vessel. Dr. Lewandowski, an emergency medicine physician at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and the trial’s principal investigator, was ecstatic.

“We felt the data was so strong we didn’t have to explain it” in the published report, he said.

He was wrong. That groundbreaking clinical trial concluded 22 years ago, yet Dr. Lewandowski and others are still trying to explain the data to a powerful contingent of doubters.

The skeptics teach medical students that T.P.A.is dangerous, causing brain hemorrhages, and that the studies that found a benefit were deeply flawed. Better to just let a stroke run its course, they say.

It’s a perspective with real-world consequences. Close to 700,000 patients have strokes caused by blood clots each year and could be helped by T.P.A. Yet up to 30 percent of stroke victims who arrive at hospitals on time and are perfect candidates for the clot-buster do not receive it.

The result: paralysis and muscle weakness; impaired cognition, speech or vision; emotional and behavioral dysfunction; and many other permanent neurological injuries.

Stroke treatment guidelines issued by the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association strongly endorse T.P.A. for patients after they have been properly evaluated. But treatment must start within three hours (in some cases, four-and-a-half hours) of the stroke’s onset, and the sooner, the better.

A number of medical societies also endorse the treatment as highly effective in reducing disability. The drug can cause or exacerbate cerebral hemorrhage, or bleeding in the brain — a real risk. But in most stroke patients it prevents brain injury, and in any event, rates of cerebral hemorrhage have declined as doctors have gained experience over the years.

Without treatment, “many patients end up permanently disabled,” said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The stroke neurologists who are involved in chronic care see the devastating consequences.”

“For some reason, the emergency medicine doctors are not factoring this in,” he added.

While the vocal disbelievers are a minority, it is increasingly easy for them to spread their message on social media, said Dr. Edward C. Jauch, a professor of neurosciences at the Medical University of South Carolina.

“The way information and opinion is now communicated to the younger generation of physicians is much more through web and social media and less through peer review journals, journal clubs or live debates,” Dr. Jauch said.

Dr. Charles R. Wira III, a professor of emergency medicine at Yale, said that when he talked to residents about T.P.A., they often start citing blogs and podcasts “as the divine word for why T.P.A. is harmful,” he said. “They have not read the articles or practice guidelines.”

Skepticism has spread around the world, Dr. Jauch said, and he has come to expect naysayers wherever he goes. In Saudi Arabia, where he was lecturing at a conference, a Saudi doctor said over dinner that he simply did not believe in T.P.A.

A leader of the skeptical contingent, Dr. Jerome Hoffman, an emergency medicine specialist and emeritus professor at U.C.L.A., believes that while the initial trial and a second one were positive, both were flawed.

He reviewed the raw data from the federal study and concluded that more patients who got T.P.A. had the least severe type of stroke and fewer had the most severe type. The treatment and control groups were dissimilar — that is, those getting T.P.A. were less badly affected from the start. Experts disagree with this analysis.

And 11 other studies did not show a benefit, Dr. Hoffman claims. But supporters note that those studies were meant to investigate whether T.P.A. might help patients with more severe strokes or those outside the recommended window of time.

The failure of those efforts, they say, does not mean T.P.A. cannot help patients like those in the original clinical trials.

A charismatic, riveting speaker, Dr. Hoffman has given educational courses across the country and many medical professionals have listened to informational tapes in which he presented his critique of the evidence. And his influence has spread.

At U.C.L.A., he said in an interview, he has spoken to stroke patients and their families even as their medical teams headed into the emergency room. He has told the patients that although the stroke team would strongly recommend T.P.A., there actually was debate over whether the treatment benefits patients in the long term.

In addition, no study suggested that a clot-buster was lifesaving, he told them, and it may cause bleeding in the brain in a small number of patients.

“In my experience, almost no one — after hearing a neutral version and then a positive version — chose T.P.A.,” Dr. Hoffman said.

Dr. Hoffman said he has debated renowned neurologists about the benefits of T.P.A. at several meetings. Afterward, audiences voted overwhelmingly against the drug.

“This is not a testament to any debating skill of mine, but reflects how people react when they are shown the actual evidence,” he said.

At Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center in San Luis Obispo, Calif., Dr. Scott Bisheff, an emergency medical physician, tells patients there is great uncertainty about whether T.P.A. helps or harms. If it caused bleeding in a patient’s brain, the consequences could be catastrophic.

About half of his stroke patients decline the treatment, Dr. Bisheff said.

For neurologists, the worst scenario by far is the patient who is never even asked if he or she wants the clot-buster. At Yale, Dr. Wira said, patients sometimes are transferred from community hospitals where they have not received T.P.A. Usually, it’s far too late to try.

Dr. Wira and other staff do not tell the family about the missed opportunity. “We try not to raise issues that may lead to litigation,” he said.

But sometimes family members cannot help knowing what went on. It happened to Dr. Lewandowski.

About a decade ago, Dr. Lewandowski was at work when he got a call that his father had had a stroke — his right side was paralyzed. But his father had gotten to the hospital within 45 minutes, well inside the window to receive T.P.A.

Dr. Lewandowski told his mother to make the family’s wishes very clear. They wanted the emergency room doctor to give the clot-buster to his dad. The doctor refused.

“He told my mom that he doesn’t believe in the drug and he is not giving it. He doesn’t care who I am,” Dr. Lewandowski said.

“I got in my car and drove 400 miles to the hospital,” he recalled. But by the time he got there, it was too late. The treatment window had closed.

His father had a facial droop and slurred speech. His right arm and right leg flopped about uselessly. His stroke scale was 7, moderately disabling, but he survived for a few more years.

“It was very difficult for me personally,” Dr. Lewandowski recalled. “I had spent so much of my professional life working on this treatment. It actually worked.”

“I felt like I had let my dad down.”

Members don't see this ad.
 
In every place I have ever worked, and every neurologist or critical care doc I've ever consulted about patients with stroke symptoms, even "minor" ones, having a discussion with and administering tPA, as long as no contraindications exist and the patient consents, has been considered the standard of care. We very carefully document why we did or did not give it. Are there really some places in the country where docs just let "stroke run its course" as the article said, if the patient would otherwise qualify for tPA? I would think that would be very difficult to defend in court. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Last edited:
Are there really some places in the country where docs just let "stroke run its course" as the article said, if the patient would otherwise qualify for tPa? I would think that would be very difficult to defend in court. Maybe I'm missing something.

Also found that strange and indefensible. My main concern is that the author of the article completely glossed over the actual body of evidence behind tPA, many of which were rife with conflicts of interest, were ended early or showed no/minimal benefit. I don't expect the lay press to nail every scientific topic they cover, but this took an incredibly complex issue and essentially cast it as black and white.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I work in a very busy comprehensive stroke center that sees 10-15 stroke patients daily that come in within an alteplase window or intervention window. We give alteplase on average daily (one day we gave 10 patients alteplase). I've been working here for 8 years, and I'm aware of only ONE intracranial bleed that happened after alteplase. ONE. Yes, I'm aware there are those that occur that I'm unaware of, but our bleed rate is <0.5% in high-risk patients extending the window to 4.5 hours. This is what happens when you practice in the "stroke belt" of America.

Docs that don't give alteplase risk having serious litigation issues. There is one case that I was asked to review recently where a doc is being sued for not giving alteplase. It's indefensible. It is the standard of care, and no matter what a few naysayers have to entire emergency medicine community believing, it is safe and the only effective treatment outside of endovascular intervention.

If your patient meets criteria for alteplase, please by all means give it!
 
As usual with NYT medical pieces, does not represent the entirety of the situation.
 
I work in a very busy comprehensive stroke center that sees 10-15 stroke patients daily that come in within an alteplase window or intervention window. We give alteplase on average daily (one day we gave 10 patients alteplase). I've been working here for 8 years, and I'm aware of only ONE intracranial bleed that happened after alteplase. ONE. Yes, I'm aware there are those that occur that I'm unaware of, but our bleed rate is <0.5% in high-risk patients extending the window to 4.5 hours. This is what happens when you practice in the "stroke belt" of America.

Docs that don't give alteplase risk having serious litigation issues. There is one case that I was asked to review recently where a doc is being sued for not giving alteplase. It's indefensible. It is the standard of care, and no matter what a few naysayers have to entire emergency medicine community believing, it is safe and the only effective treatment outside of endovascular intervention.

If your patient meets criteria for alteplase, please by all means give it!
That is great that your experience is so positive at your specific center; however, tPA is by no means a "safe" medication. 6% risk of ICH is the number found in the tPA studies for true ischemic strokes, around 1% for all others with stroke mimics. That 1% is consistent w/ the cardiology literature on thrombolysis, as well. No drug that carries a 6% risk of ICH if used appropriately for stroke should be considered "safe", and patients should be appropriately made aware of the risks along with the benefits. I work in the "stroke belt", as well, and our ICH rates are significantly higher than <0.5%. And I have a hard time believing your center has only seen 1 ICH in 8 years, that is just not consistent w/ the data whatsoever. We have a case of ICH following tPA at least once every month to two months (we are a comprehensive stroke center, as well). I've personally witnessed 2 patients die from tPA following massive ICH. My assumption based on the number of individuals your center is tPAing is that you are probably giving tPA to a ton of young, stroke mimics.

Is tPA standard of care for strokes w/o contraindications? Absolutely, but patients should still be made aware of the risks along with the benefits (based on the published literature) and allow them or their family to determine what they believe to be best for themselves/family member.
 
The vast majority of our alteplase candidates have MRI confirmed strokes. They are sometimes young (18 year old is the youngest), but usually middle to late aged.

I'm aware of the NINDS data, but subsequent studies have shown a lower significant bleed rate.

This will all be a moot point in a few years when patients will likely go directly to endovascular therapy much like STEMI's no longer receive thrombolytics.
 
<0.5% bleed rate? Wow. Nearly unbelievable. I do NOT push TPA onto high risk patients, nor do the people I work with, but I see more like 5-10% SIGNIFICANT post-TPA bleed rate. Mostly in the very elderly.
 
I'll be honest, I was never a fan of the original NINDS data. There was a modest improvement in outcome at 3 months, absolutely no benefit at 24hours, 6.4% risk of ICH, and absolutely no effect on mortality. I've always had very thorough discussions with my pt's about TPA with clear explanations of the risks and I've had countless patients refuse therapy based on those risks which I think is completely their right and many times completely reasonable. I get continued pressure from the stroke coordinator and neurology to basically line these people up and bolus TPA right as I finish the NIH score, but I don't think that's right. Once you see a post TPA ICH, you don't tend to forget them. I can see a pt or their family easily suing for a post TPA bleed because they weren't properly educated on the risks. It's no miracle drug IMO. That being said, I recognize it's standard of care and I offer it when they are within window with no contraindications but I don't rush it, and I take plenty of time to explain the risks and don't argue whatsoever when the pt declines. I'll never set any records for TPA administration with my name on a poster in the ER ("TPA RECORD OF THE MONTH!! DOOR TO TPA IN 0.4 NANOSECONDS! GREAT JOB TEAM!", but I sleep better at night.

I've been MUCH more impressed with the endovascular therapies that we have available these days...
 
I'll be honest, I was never a fan of the original NINDS data. There was a modest improvement in outcome at 3 months, absolutely no benefit at 24hours, 6.4% risk of ICH, and absolutely no effect on mortality. I've always had very thorough discussions with my pt's about TPA with clear explanations of the risks and I've had countless patients refuse therapy based on those risks which I think is completely their right and many times completely reasonable. I get continued pressure from the stroke coordinator and neurology to basically line these people up and bolus TPA right as I finish the NIH score, but I don't think that's right. Once you see a post TPA ICH, you don't tend to forget them. I can see a pt or their family easily suing for a post TPA bleed because they weren't properly educated on the risks. It's no miracle drug IMO. That being said, I recognize it's standard of care and I offer it when they are within window with no contraindications but I don't rush it, and I take plenty of time to explain the risks and don't argue whatsoever when the pt declines. I'll never set any records for TPA administration with my name on a poster in the ER ("TPA RECORD OF THE MONTH!! DOOR TO TPA IN 0.4 NANOSECONDS! GREAT JOB TEAM!", but I sleep better at night.

I've been MUCH more impressed with the endovascular therapies that we have available these days...

Nice articles about endovascular in NEJM recently
NEJM - Error
NEJM - Error

We're doing some pretty impressive stuff with endovascular treatments for PE as well
 
We give alteplase while they're still on the CT scanner. They go straight from ambulance bay to CT scanner. ED doc, 2 nurses, 1 tech, and neurologist meet them in CT. They get a non-con CT. If within window, alteplase is started (before labs have resulted if no history of anticoagulant use, cancer, thrombocytopenia, etc.). They get an immediate CT angiogram head/neck after alteplase is started. +/- CT perfusion study. If they have a large vessel occlusion, they go directly from CT to endovascular suite.

At first I was shy at giving alteplase without baseline labs, but I've grown accustomed to it. It's our institutional standard and seems to be moving to a regional standard.

My record for door-to-tPA time has been 7 minutes. It was broken recently by a doc that did it in 6 minutes.

This is for our Code FAST (tPA candidates). Those that are >4.5 hour onset are stroke protocols and go to a shock/trauma room then to CT. Things move quickly, but nowhere near as fast as a code FAST patient. They almost always get CT perfusion studies, so they're in the CT suite for a little while.

My hospital keeps an attending neuroradiologist in-house 24/7. Yes, it's difficult recruiting a night-time neuroradiologist. Not sure what they are paying those guys for it.
 
I've always thought about what I would want in that situation. Not talking about the right pinky paresthesias for the past 20 minutes, but the full on hemiparesis with complete aphasia and inability to keep the drool in my mouth. Knowing the debate over tPa, the risks, I'd say clot bust my ass and get me to a neurointerventional center. If that's what I would want for myself, why would I not recommend the same for my patients?

And if I suffer a large post tPa hemorrhage? Push another dose of tPa and just finish me off.


All that being said, this article is clickbait (or its printed news equivalent), obviously interviews people with biased opinions, clearly written by someone with no understanding of medicine, likely to confuse the public, likely to get lawyers horny when they get to imagine their next TV commercial about how doctors refuse to use lifesaving drugs all the time because we're too busy counting our money, and is unfortionate that it was allowed to be published. Belongs in the same sewer archive as the news articles about the magical lifesaving influenza drug that those idiot doctors refuse to use because we're too stupid, lazy, or getting kickbacks from the pharmaceutical company that actually creates and distributes the influenza virus.
 
We give alteplase while they're still on the CT scanner. They go straight from ambulance bay to CT scanner. ED doc, 2 nurses, 1 tech, and neurologist meet them in CT. They get a non-con CT. If within window, alteplase is started (before labs have resulted if no history of anticoagulant use, cancer, thrombocytopenia, etc.). They get an immediate CT angiogram head/neck after alteplase is started. +/- CT perfusion study. If they have a large vessel occlusion, they go directly from CT to endovascular suite.

At first I was shy at giving alteplase without baseline labs, but I've grown accustomed to it. It's our institutional standard and seems to be moving to a regional standard.

My record for door-to-tPA time has been 7 minutes. It was broken recently by a doc that did it in 6 minutes.

This is for our Code FAST (tPA candidates). Those that are >4.5 hour onset are stroke protocols and go to a shock/trauma room then to CT. Things move quickly, but nowhere near as fast as a code FAST patient. They almost always get CT perfusion studies, so they're in the CT suite for a little while.

My hospital keeps an attending neuroradiologist in-house 24/7. Yes, it's difficult recruiting a night-time neuroradiologist. Not sure what they are paying those guys for it.

Southerndoc,

This is like Dr. McCoy's sick back on the USS Enterprise compared to the chicken bones/grass skirts departments out there.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Southerndoc,

This is like Dr. McCoy's sick back on the USS Enterprise compared to the chicken bones/grass skirts departments out there.
My tPA conversation takes a good 3-5 minutes. Not sure how you are examining, CT head, reading, mixing and giving tPA in 7 min. But corners are being cut imho.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
My tPA conversation takes a good 3-5 minutes. Not sure how you are examining, CT head, reading, mixing and giving tPA in 7 min. But corners are being cut imho.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Easy. Stroke neurologist and neuroradiologist review the CT on the machine; pharmacy comes with the alteplase in a box (and starts mixing while we're determing candidacy if no bleed -- Genentech reimburses us partially for unused mixed doses). An alteplase conversation doesn't take 3-5 minutes.

I forgot to mention that an ED pharmacist is part of the response team. One of the benefits of working in a 150,000 volume ED. I don't expect a 30,000 volume ED to have these resources.
 
I generally abbreviate the whole TPA conversation to a summary of the percent chance of less stroke symptoms three months down the road and the percent chance that they will die if they get the medicine I can do the whole conversation and 30 seconds if the patient has quick answer. Or sometimes a patient takes like 10 to 15 minutes to make the decision. I work at a major center, so sometimes we can get a patient TPA within 10 minutes of arrival, but usually it’s within 20 to 25 minutes. That is in the case of a Pre-arrival alert. If the patients go through triage and then identified by a nurse it can add an extra half hour to the process theoretically if it’s not a clear-cut diagnosis.
 
We give alteplase while they're still on the CT scanner. They go straight from ambulance bay to CT scanner. ED doc, 2 nurses, 1 tech, and neurologist meet them in CT. They get a non-con CT. If within window, alteplase is started (before labs have resulted if no history of anticoagulant use, cancer, thrombocytopenia, etc.). They get an immediate CT angiogram head/neck after alteplase is started. +/- CT perfusion study. If they have a large vessel occlusion, they go directly from CT to endovascular suite.

At first I was shy at giving alteplase without baseline labs, but I've grown accustomed to it. It's our institutional standard and seems to be moving to a regional standard.

My record for door-to-tPA time has been 7 minutes. It was broken recently by a doc that did it in 6 minutes.

This is for our Code FAST (tPA candidates). Those that are >4.5 hour onset are stroke protocols and go to a shock/trauma room then to CT. Things move quickly, but nowhere near as fast as a code FAST patient. They almost always get CT perfusion studies, so they're in the CT suite for a little while.

My hospital keeps an attending neuroradiologist in-house 24/7. Yes, it's difficult recruiting a night-time neuroradiologist. Not sure what they are paying those guys for it.
If the drug works as well as people say it does, your site must have some amazing outcomes. If it isn't having them, perhaps dialing back the nutjob status would be good? I mean, the CT ambos out there are comical as well.
 
If the drug works as well as people say it does, your site must have some amazing outcomes. If it isn't having them, perhaps dialing back the nutjob status would be good? I mean, the CT ambos out there are comical as well.

Yes, we've had some really amazing outcomes. They have been presented at various national conferences.

I'm not a big fan of the CT ambulances. We talked about it, but the plan was quickly dismissed.
 
I generally abbreviate the whole TPA conversation to a summary of the percent chance of less stroke symptoms three months down the road and the percent chance that they will die if they get the medicine I can do the whole conversation and 30 seconds if the patient has quick answer. Or sometimes a patient takes like 10 to 15 minutes to make the decision. I work at a major center, so sometimes we can get a patient TPA within 10 minutes of arrival, but usually it’s within 20 to 25 minutes. That is in the case of a Pre-arrival alert. If the patients go through triage and then identified by a nurse it can add an extra half hour to the process theoretically if it’s not a clear-cut diagnosis.

Which percentages do you quote and how do you phrase it succinctly? This is probably the "canned conversation" that I most need to improve.
 
Which percentages do you quote and how do you phrase it succinctly? This is probably the "canned conversation" that I most need to improve.

Also curious. I'm a big fan of using the shaded people icon pictures.
 
I've always thought about what I would want in that situation. Not talking about the right pinky paresthesias for the past 20 minutes, but the full on hemiparesis with complete aphasia and inability to keep the drool in my mouth. Knowing the debate over tPa, the risks, I'd say clot bust my ass and get me to a neurointerventional center. If that's what I would want for myself, why would I not recommend the same for my patients?

And if I suffer a large post tPa hemorrhage? Push another dose of tPa and just finish me off.


All that being said, this article is clickbait (or its printed news equivalent), obviously interviews people with biased opinions, clearly written by someone with no understanding of medicine, likely to confuse the public, likely to get lawyers horny when they get to imagine their next TV commercial about how doctors refuse to use lifesaving drugs all the time because we're too busy counting our money, and is unfortionate that it was allowed to be published. Belongs in the same sewer archive as the news articles about the magical lifesaving influenza drug that those idiot doctors refuse to use because we're too stupid, lazy, or getting kickbacks from the pharmaceutical company that actually creates and distributes the influenza virus.

Spot on. I'd rather bleed to death than live with debilitating hemiparesis. I'd demand the tPA for myself even if there were several relative contraindications.
 
There's an enormous amount of pharmaceutical sponsorship bias (Helloooo....Genetech) and clearly documented pharmaceutical financial disclosures in many (>75%) of the "most commonly" cited research studies used to support TPA. It's common knowledge that a majority of panelists on the AHA who voted in 2000 on the TPA stroke guidelines had documented and proven ties and financial interests to Genetech. It's called "Panel stacking" and has become the norm with big pharma. They would have you think >95% of ABEM docs are sold on TPA, but just look at the mass hysteria ABEMs policy update in 2013 caused.

Again, I'm not saying it hasn't become standard of care and I'm not trying to dissuade clinicians from using it, but once you wrap your brain around all the original literature and stand back for a second... It's hard not to wonder how on earth a little drug shown to have such a small clinical improvement while showing significant risk to harm became so entrenched in the frenetic, frenzied, hysterical push of current stroke center policies with palpable pressure from on high to give this drug with potentially lethal consequences...sooner, faster, don't talk to the pt or family, implied consent, don't wait for labs or BP optimization, just DO IT. It's hard not to feel a little.... suspicious? Call me an eternal skeptic or paranoid...whatever, but I've always smelled a rat with the brute force attack on brainwashing docs to "give more TPA". It just reeks of big pharma to me and the level of infatuated zealotry regarding the drug over the years has never seemed to correlate to what you would expect to be an overwhelmingly effective drug with a high safety profile.

Now, fast forward to the 2014+ trials (after the disappointing results in ~2012) ...Mr Clean, Extend, Escape, DEFUSE, all the rest.... Endovascular therapy is the real deal. This is the future of stroke therapy... not IV push liquid drano.

Anyway, as for the "canned speech", just give pt's the NINDS data:

1 out of 18 patients given this drug bleed in their brain, or roughly ~6%.
Of that 6%, 45% died from a result of the bleeding.
1 out of 10 patients given this drug showed an improvement in stroke outcome at 3 months. (8 out of 18 vs 6 out of 18)

Obviously, you can sugar coat the numbers and phrase all of this with as much layman baby speak as necessary but that's the critical data that needs to be conveyed to the pt/family IMO.
 
I simply say there’s a drug that can kill you or help you. If I give it there is a 2% chance you would die, but there’s also a 10% chance that you’ll have a better outcome in three months than if you did not take it. Even if we do not give it, there is still treatment available, and without it you’ll still have a 1 out of 3 chance of some sort of improvement in 3 months.

Most take it unless it’s a minor deficit. I don’t really push them in one direction or another. I do work at a comprehensive stroke center so most of the time the neurologist has the talk with them so it’s even easier for me.

I have talked with our neurologists, and the kill rate seems to be closer to 1% at our institution, But they’ve all had that happen to them at one point or another, so they don’t go gung ho crazy about giving it.
 
There's a fairly robust discussion going on in SP as well, if anyone wanted to check it out. There are certainly differing viewpoints in there.
 
Nice articles about endovascular in NEJM recently
NEJM - Error
NEJM - Error

We're doing some pretty impressive stuff with endovascular treatments for PE as well

I'll leave PE alone for now, as I agree with the implication of the rest of your post and the linked NEJM papers.

Now let's just stop giving the damn alteplase and get these patients with large vessel occulusions to endovascular labs.

Endovascular vs. endovascular plus tpa would be a nice study. Of course, regardless of the results, the nuts will argue we should just give the tpa anyway.

HH
 
And if I suffer a large post tPa hemorrhage? Push another dose of tPa and just finish me off.
.

We must stop saying stuff like this - even if it's partially tongue-in-cheek.

First off, this is illegal (although I am personally OK with it from a moral/philosophical standpoint).

Secondly, the patient's with hemorrhagic conversion don't just die. They frequently (majority of the time?) languish in the ICU and often for the rest of their artificially-prolonged lives with more severe deficits that often require tube feeding and mechanical ventilation.

And please don't tell me the neuro-intensivist -- nevermind the neuro-interventionalist -- will have a discussion with the family about withdrawal of life prolonging therapies when there is clearly a worse outcome after hemorrhagic conversion.

HH
 
Last edited:
Endovascular vs. endovascular plus tpa would be a nice study. Of course, regardless of the results, the nuts will argue we should just give the tpa anyway.

One of the big stroke neurologists who has done a lot of the endovascular trials gave us a talk recently and mentioned that he thinks there's equipoise for this study now and that it will happen soon. We'll see.
 
Reading through the comments section of this article is enlightening and frustrating ... so many patient, nurse, and unfortunately physician anecdotes of watching the drug work magically before their eyes and “cure” the deficit. The seemingly most misunderstood aspect of all of this are the natural course of improvement of many strokes as we all have seen with non tpa candidates and heard about when someone describes their TIA symptoms. If this “cure” was a reality then you have to believe this would have shown up at least somewhere in the data ... and as we all know, no study has ever shown a benefit at 24 hrs. The idea of marginal rankin score change at 3 months is difficult to grasp - the above posters seem to have a nice concise way to explain this to patients and this should be employed more than the paternalistic approach - patients are allowed to have different levels of risk tolerance and conveying the nuances of options in a time crunched stressful situation is a difficult but worthwhile pursuit that I know I, for one, should spend more effort on developing - I just think this NYT article is the opposite of the thoughtfulness and discussion that this issue deserves but in our world of “hot takes” and binary debate it is unfortunately not a surprise to see. Endovascular seems to be the truth but definitely disheartening to know how small a percentage of stroke patients are proximal/large vessel occulusions
 
great summary. too bad it was written by david newman. thanks for sharing the resource.

Yeah.

At first I thought "It's scientific evidence, so the fact that he was a disgusting dirtbag shouldn't change my conclusions."

Then I realized that the vast majority of what he published was his interpretations of his own synthesis of other peoples' research. So it's a step above opinion, but it's not completely objective, hard evidence.
 
We must stop saying stuff like this - even if it's partially tongue-in-cheek.

First off, this is illegal (although I am personally OK with it from a moral/philosophical standpoint).

Secondly, the patient's with hemorrhagic conversion don't just die. They frequently (majority of the time?) languish in the ICU and often for the rest of their artificially-prolonged lives with more severe deficits that often require tube feeding and mechanical ventilation.

And please don't tell me the neuro-intensivist -- nevermind the neuro-interventionalist -- will have a discussion with the family about withdrawal of life prolonging therapies when there is clearly a worse outcome after hemorrhagic conversion.

HH

I disagree. The statement of "give me TPA, and if I bleed then pull the plug" is a sentiment which reflects a common feeling among the community. People don't want to live with disability.

There are many problems with all the TPA research. Yes ED-minded mortality benefits are important, but perhaps disability benefits are more important. It's a shame that the research is publishing post-hoc analysis of disability benefits. This is what the Neurologists are pushing. And frankly I believe the community intuitively wants this too. So yes, give me TPA for large stroke deficits. If I bleed then finish me off.

In reality, we don't know the answer. It's not clear cut. The only thing we do know is that it's ironic that NY TIMES writer slammed the spreading of medical knowledge via social media and the internet, then proceeded to push their medical agenda using the internet!

A final note -- Our entire job is about risk stratification. You are more likely to be sued in the ED for inaction than action. Do go all cavalier, but something to keep in mind...
 
I disagree. The statement of "give me TPA, and if I bleed then pull the plug" is a sentiment

. So yes, give me TPA for large stroke deficits. If I bleed then finish me off.

I understand you don't like the reality I have presented. In fact, I probably would like your morality world and could go with what your statements here are suggesting.

The problem is that the VAST majority of patients, families, and doctors disagree when it comes to "game time".

Furthermore, statements or sentiments like "just finish me off" are just ignorant or for the bar/SDN forums.

If you disagree with that, please tell me what you mean by "just finish me off" or even "pull the plug".

HH
 
I understand you don't like the reality I have presented. In fact, I probably would like your morality world and could go with what your statements here are suggesting.

The problem is that the VAST majority of patients, families, and doctors disagree when it comes to "game time".

Furthermore, statements or sentiments like "just finish me off" are just ignorant or for the bar/SDN forums.

If you disagree with that, please tell me what you mean by "just finish me off" or even "pull the plug".

HH

I'm on the other guy's side. I have had patients who have told me that if they knew what their lives would be like, they would have made completely different choices.
 
I understand you don't like the reality I have presented. In fact, I probably would like your morality world and could go with what your statements here are suggesting.

The problem is that the VAST majority of patients, families, and doctors disagree when it comes to "game time".

Furthermore, statements or sentiments like "just finish me off" are just ignorant or for the bar/SDN forums.

If you disagree with that, please tell me what you mean by "just finish me off" or even "pull the plug".

HH

I love life and I want it to go on as long as I can continue to be useful, and not longer. If I have a major stroke and can communicate at all, I'm going to express this. I've said as much to my loved ones often enough and recorded it in advanced directives. Do whatever is going to give me the best shot of meaningful recovery, regardless of the risk.

Indeed, if there is something that has a fair to good chance of helping, but just might kill me if it doesn't help, then I especially want that. Death is so preferable to severe neurologic disability that I consider the risk that accompanies tPA to be a feature, not a bug.

That stance is the result of having worked in critical, acute, and long-term care settings. Saying it coarsely, as "if it doesn't help me, just kill me" may rub you the wrong way, but it isn't an ignorant thing to say. I'd argue that in many cases, that is the voice of education and experience and a lot of thought about what that person would wish for themselves in extremis. You are correct that wishes can't always be granted, because, as you say, there are legal and ethical considerations. But it would be a mercy for all involved if they were more often expressed so clearly and frankly.

Every time I've been present for withdrawal of care, the families who had peace around that moment were the ones saying "This is what she said she wanted. Over and over. She made us promise. This was her wish, if it ever came to this."

If people weren't shamed into not expressing that wish, the neurointensivists would find those conversations a lot easier to have.
 
I, but just might kill me if it doesn't help, then I especially want that. Death is so preferable to severe neurologic disability
.

And this (see quoted text above) is the problem.
If we were talking about a drug that might help but if it didn't help it instead left people who might of had severe disability dead, it would be an amazingly easier discussion to have.
The problem is that alteplase for ischemic stroke is NOT that drug. It's not leaving people dead when it doesn't help. It sometimes kills people, but more often it just results in more disability of unpredictable degree.
This is the point that is so hard to communicate to families and patients. Hell, many acute care physicians don't fully grasp this. For evidence of this ultimate point, review this thread.

HH
 
And this (see quoted text above) is the problem.
If we were talking about a drug that might help but if it didn't help it instead left people who might of had severe disability dead, it would be an amazingly easier discussion to have.
The problem is that alteplase for ischemic stroke is NOT that drug. It's not leaving people dead when it doesn't help. It sometimes kills people, but more often it just results in more disability of unpredictable degree.
This is the point that is so hard to communicate to families and patients. Hell, many acute care physicians don't fully grasp this. For evidence of this ultimate point, review this thread.

HH

It isn't lost on me that alteplase doesn't provide quite the certainty I'd like for it to do, in a perfect world. There isn't a lack of grasp. I get that it can take a bad set of deficits and turn it into a worse one. And yet... Does the frequency of benefit indeed exceed the frequency of increased disability?

Using the least favorable numbers discussed above... 10% chance of benefit in 3 months vs 6% chance of bleed, half of which are fatal... sounds to me like a 10% better vs 3% worse vs 3% dead. I see 13% outcomes that I want vs 3% outcomes that I don't and a lot of eh, doesn't seem to do much in between. That may not seem like much of a chance to you, but I'd gladly take it.

I think what I am saying is not that I can't understand your point about increased disability being a possibility. Rather, I'm saying, and I think this is likely what others are expressing as well... death goes into the positive outcome column. It gets tallied up alongside the chance of benefit as an acceptable outcome. At the very least, it isn't a negative.
 
death goes into the positive outcome column. It gets tallied up alongside the chance of benefit as an acceptable outcome. At the very least, it isn't a negative.

I think we have come close to that sweet spot of conversation/debate; which is rare but so nice.
I fully agree, death is a positive outcome when there is severe presenting disability.
I would only ask that folks remember that with the indication creep of the past decade, alteplase is frequently given for minimal deficits and often resolving or resolved deficits. Hemorrhagic conversion rarely produces death in these cases and often takes mild deficit to moderate deficit.
Also, i think it is important to remember the small degree of benefit at 90 days that we are putting in the "positive column".
That said, I think we agree much more than disagree at this point and I think my initial point that comments like "just push (a) dose of tpa and just finish me off" (quoted from above; generated my first response) show an unhelpful lack of understanding and sense of nuance at best.
HH
 
I understand you don't like the reality I have presented. In fact, I probably would like your morality world and could go with what your statements here are suggesting.

The problem is that the VAST majority of patients, families, and doctors disagree when it comes to "game time".

Furthermore, statements or sentiments like "just finish me off" are just ignorant or for the bar/SDN forums.

If you disagree with that, please tell me what you mean by "just finish me off" or even "pull the plug".

HH

Obviously it would depend on the extent of deficit, but I assume this translates into "extubate, no artificial nutrition, morphine prn air hunger / discomfort"
 
Probably because your facility is so aggressive and ends up giving tPa to a lot of people without strokes. Giving tPa to someone without a stroke is much safer.

Perhaps you missed the point that these were MRI confirmed strokes. The bleed rate for "stroke mimics" is even less.
 
I'm pretty much tired of the tPA debate. It's effectively pointless, from a pragmatic standpoint – when it's written into specialty guidelines and quality measures, you've lost the war.

We all know, especially from the endovascular literature, that 1) tPA doesn't break up all clots, and 2) not all patients have salvageable tissue behind those clots. However, those with financial stake in the product will never let additional science try and narrow the population of strokes for whom tPA is given. Not all patients have bleed rates like in NINDS – but some do, and some have higher rates. But, again, any effort to curtail the population of eligible patients is met with resistance, if not active attempts to justify expansion into the realm of previous relative contraindications.

I do a little bit of tPA defense work, and it's mostly weird cases where there was uncertainty and clinical confounders, where there were delays in diagnosis of stroke or stroke eligibility – not docs with blanket opposition to tPA, like alluded to in the article. Everyone also forgets it's still not FDA-approved beyond 3 hours. The chair at OHSU still uses 3 hours as the cut-off, since he was the PI for ATLANTIS.

I'll believe low bleed rates, but it means a lot of patients with low NIHSS and small infarct territories are being treated, with uncertain clinical benefit. Even the ENCHANTED trial with low-dose alteplase had a 5.9% bleed rate in the low-dose cohort. Our bleed rate is definitely >5%.

Oh, but yeah, the NYT article definitely sucked, tho.
 
Another physician offered a rebuttal to that article, which can be found here Medscape: Medscape Access . Of course, if you look at the disclosures, that physician has been on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies.

Yeah, I read both of them. I didn't notice the financial disclosures though until you mentioned them. 👍 It just goes to show there's a lot more controversy regarding TPA than most would have you believe...
 
Top