Evaluating Thrombolysis Rates and Emergency Department Time Targets in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Need for Personalized Medicine

Abstract

Background and objectives: In the era of personalized medicine, standard protocols regarding the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) focus on time targets alone without tailoring the protocol to the specific patient and hospital characteristics to increase IV thrombolysis rates and improve outcomes for these patients by considering organizational differences and patient-related factors that influence adherence to target times at the emergency department level. With this in mind, we evaluate the effect of achieving ED time targets from standard protocol and patient-related risk factors on the intravenous (IV) thrombolysis rate in patients with AIS in the therapeutic window. Materials and Methods: For our research, we enrolled people who arrived at the ED with signs of recent AIS with an onset of less than 4.5 h. Initially, 355 patients were included in the study, but through careful screening, only 258 were considered eligible to participate. Of the final group of 258 patients, only 46 received intravenous thrombolysis treatment. Results: In our study, when we are analyzing ED times in patients admitted with stroke symptoms in the therapeutic window, we found statistically significantly decreased ED times for patients that performed IV thrombolysis compared to patients not performing as follows: a median of 100 min in onset-to-ED door time (p < 0.001), a door-to-physician time (ED doctor) of 4 min (p = 0.009), door-to-blood-samples of 5 min (p = 0.026), a door-to-CT time of 15.5 min (p = 0.009), and door-to-CT results of 37 min (p < 0.001). In addition, patients who received intravenous thrombolysis were found to be significantly older (p < 0.001), with lower height and weight (p < 0.001 for both) and lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores (9 ± 4.94 vs. 13.85 ± 2.41, p < 0.001). The logistic regression analysis indicated that the onset-to-ED time (p < 0.001) and the door-to-physician time (p = 0.014) for emergency medicine physicians are significant predictors of the likelihood of administering thrombolysis. By analyzing the impact of comorbidities, we observed that dyslipidemia, chronic arterial hypertension, and diabetes mellitus are significant predictive factors for performing IV thrombolysis (the presence of dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus are predictive factors for performing IV thrombolysis, while the presence of arterial hypertension is not). Conclusions: The ED time targets that significantly influenced IV thrombolysis in our study were the onset-to-ED door time and the time it takes for the ED doctor to assess the AIS patient (door-to-physician time). The IV thrombolysis rate for these patients was 17.83%, lower than expected despite achieving most ED time targets, with the presence of chronic arterial hypertension as a significant predictive patient-related factor for not performing it. Even though our reported hospital’s thrombolysis rate is favorable compared to international reports, there is always room for improvement. Based on our study results, it is necessary that new protocols to customized standard protocols and ED time targets for increasing IV thrombolysis rate in patients with AIS in the therapeutic window, focusing more on patient-related factors and type of hospitals, granting personalized medicine its right. Based on our study results, it is necessary that new protocols customize standard protocols and ED time targets for increasing IV thrombolysis rate in patients with AIS in the therapeutic window, focusing more on patient-related factors and type of hospitals, granting personalized medicine its right.