Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorBergh, Elin
dc.contributor.authorJahr, Silje Holt
dc.contributor.authorRønning, Ole Morten
dc.contributor.authorAskim, Torunn
dc.contributor.authorThommessen, Bente
dc.contributor.authorKristoffersen, Espen Saxhaug
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-09T12:00:52Z
dc.date.available2023-02-09T12:00:52Z
dc.date.created2022-05-01T13:12:24Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationActa Neurologica Scandinavica. 2022, 146 (1), 61-69.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0001-6314
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3049669
dc.description.abstractObjectives Thrombolytic treatment in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) reduces stroke-related disability. Nearly 40% of all patients with AIS (<4.5 h) receive thrombolysis, but there is a large variation in the use between hospitals. Little is known about reasons and predictors for not giving thrombolytic treatment. Therefore, we aimed to investigate reasons for non-thrombolysis in patients admitted within 4.5 h. Methods All patients with AIS (<4.5 h) admitted to Akershus University Hospital, Norway, between January 2015 and December 2017 were examined. Patient characteristics and reasons for not giving thrombolysis were registered. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were performed. Results Of 535 patients admitted with AIS (<4.5 h), 250 (47%) did not receive thrombolysis and of these only 26% had an absolute contraindication to treatment. Among the 74% with relative contraindications, the most common reasons given were mild and improving symptoms. Previous stroke (OR 3.32, 95%CI 1.99–5.52), arriving between 3 h and 4.5 h after onset (OR 7.76, 95%CI 3.73–16.11) or having mild symptoms (OR 2.33, 95%CI 1.56–3.49) were all significant predictors of not receiving thrombolytic treatment in the multivariable logistic regression model. Conclusion A large proportion of patients with AIS do not receive thrombolysis. This study highlights up-to-date findings that arriving late in the time window, mild symptoms, and previous stroke are strong predictors of non-treatment. It is uncertain whether there is an underuse of thrombolysis in AIS. Increasing the utility of thrombolysis in the 4.5 h time window must be weighed against possible harms.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sonsen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleReasons and predictors of non-thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke admitted within 4.5 hen_US
dc.title.alternativeReasons and predictors of non-thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke admitted within 4.5 hen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber61-69en_US
dc.source.volume146en_US
dc.source.journalActa Neurologica Scandinavicaen_US
dc.source.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ane.13622
dc.identifier.cristin2020397
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal