Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSøyland, Mary-Helen
dc.contributor.authorTveiten, Arnstein
dc.contributor.authorAgnethe, Eltoft
dc.contributor.authorØygarden, Halvor
dc.contributor.authorVarmdal, Torunn
dc.contributor.authorIndredavik, Bent
dc.contributor.authorMathiesen, Ellisiv B.
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-30T08:57:01Z
dc.date.available2024-07-30T08:57:01Z
dc.date.created2024-02-02T09:00:28Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) Volume 13 • Number 3 • 6 February 2024en_US
dc.identifier.issn2047-9980
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3143668
dc.description.abstractBackground Previous clinical trials found improved outcome of thrombolytic treatment in patients with ischemic wake‐up stroke (WUS) selected by advanced imaging techniques. The authors assessed the effectiveness of thrombolytic treatment in patients with WUS in a nationwide stroke registry. Methods and Results Using propensity score matching, the authors assessed the effectiveness and safety of thrombolytic treatment versus no thrombolytic treatment in 726 patients (363 matched pairs) with WUS in the Norwegian Stroke Registry in 2014 to 2019. Thrombolytic treatment in WUS versus known‐onset stroke was compared in 730 patients (365 matched pairs). Functional outcomes were assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months. A significant benefit of thrombolytic treatment in WUS was seen in ordinal analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.15–1.91]; P=0.003) and for mRS 0 to 2 (OR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.29–2.52]; P=0.001) but not for mRS 0 or 1 (OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.00–1.74]; P=0.050). The proportion of patients with mRS 0 or 1 was lower in patients with WUS who underwent thrombolysis versus those with known‐onset stroke (50.4% versus 59.5%; OR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52–0.93]; P=0.013), while outcomes were similar between groups for mRS 0 to 2 and ordinal analysis. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after thrombolytic treatment occurred in 4.4% of patients with WUS and 3.9% of patients with known‐onset stroke (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.54–2.41]; P=0.726). Conclusions Thrombolytic treatment in patients with WUS was associated with improved functional outcome compared with patients with no thrombolytic treatment and was not associated with increased rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage compared with known‐onset stroke. The results indicate that thrombolytic treatment is effective and safe in WUS in a real‐life setting.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherPublished on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wileyen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleThrombolytic Treatment in Wake-Up Stroke: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Treatment Effectiveness in the Norwegian Stroke Registryen_US
dc.title.alternativeThrombolytic Treatment in Wake-Up Stroke: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Treatment Effectiveness in the Norwegian Stroke Registryen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.volume13en_US
dc.source.journalJournal of the American Heart Association (JAHA)en_US
dc.source.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1161/JAHA.123.032309
dc.identifier.cristin2242397
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal