hidden

From evidence to practice: Insights from the GWTG-HF Registry on the Applicability of FDA Labeling for Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors continue to amaze the world of cardiovascular pharmacotherapeutics. Initially developed as anti-diabetic agents, SGLT-2 inhibitors have demonstrated a wide range of benefits across various patient subsets, most notably those with heart failure.

The landmark Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial the results of which were published in November 2019, demonstrated that the SGLT-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced mortality and worsening heart failure events, and improved health-related quality of life among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.1

Based on these DAPA-HF trial results, in May 2020, dapagliflozin was the first SGLT-2 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for HFrEF.2 However, as previous registries have shown, many novel evidence-based therapies are either delayed or not optimally utilized in practice. 3,4 Thus, in order to determine the proportion of eligible candidates for the initiation of dapagliflozin and define potential barriers to therapeutic optimization, an analysis of the American Heart Association (AHA)’s The Get With The Guidelines®–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry was undertaken by Vaduganathan and colleagues. This blog is a summary of the results of this analysis, part of TRANSLATE-HF research platform, the results of which were presented at AHA Scientific Sessions 2020, with simultaneous publication in  JAMA Cardiology.5

The GWTG-HF registry: This a large contemporary hospital-based quality improvement registry including a total of 586,580 patients from 529 sites across the United States.

Population of interest: After exclusion criteria were applied, the primary study cohort for this analysis included 154,714 patients hospitalized with HFrEF at 406 sites between January 2014 – September 2019. As with DAPA-HF, the focus was on chronic HFrEF (≤40%) and treatment eligibility of patients based on discharge parameters during the transition to ambulatory care.

Treatment candidates for Dapagligflozin: The FDA label excluded patients with type 1 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (i.e. estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and dialysis). When this FDA label was applied to patients in the above cohort, 81.1% would be candidates for dapagliflozin, with similar proportions across all study years (range 80.4-81.7%). When analyzed for 355 sites with ≥10 hospitalizations (enrolling 154,522 patients), the median proportion of FDA label candidates was similar, at 81.1%.

Eligibility according to diabetic status: Notably, the proportion of eligible patients for dapagliflozin was higher among those withOUT a history of or new diagnosis of diabetes, as compared with those with type 2 diabetes (85.5% vs. 75.6%).

Reasons for not meeting FDA label: The predominant reason for ineligibility for dapagliflozin in this cohort was an eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at discharge; this was more frequent among diabetics (23.9%) than non-diabetics (14.3%). Other reasons were far less frequent: 3.2% were ineligible due to chronic dialysis and only 0.02% due to type 1 diabetes.

Especially in terms of ineligibility for Dapagliflozin reported in this publication, it is important to note that this data analysis was undertaken between April 1st to June 30th, 2020. More compelling data from two other pivotal SGLT-2 trials reported after DAPA-HF are likely to further extend SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment indications to patients with more severe CKD. DAPA CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease6 evaluated patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease with eGFR down to as low as 25mL/min/1.73 m2 and EMPEROR-Reduced7 evaluated patients with HFrEF with eGFR as low as 20mL/min/1.73 m2.

Differences between DAPA-HF Trial Participants vs. FDA Label Candidates in GWTG-HF: Participants in DAPA-HF were younger, less often women, and less often Black compared with participants in GWTG-HF, underscoring the need for greater representation of older adults, women, racial/ethnic minority groups, and those with multiple comorbidities in clinical trials relative to reference usual care (i.e. registry) populations. GWTG-HF registry participants had lower left ventricular EF and eGFR; however, a history of myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention) were more prevalent among DAPA-HF participants.  The overall prevalence of diabetes was similar between both cohorts (44.1%  in GWTG-HF registry vs 45% in DAPA-HF population). There was a lower use of evidence-based HF medical therapies among GWTG-HF participants, but higher use of implantable-cardioverter defibrillators. Most other clinical characteristics were qualitatively similar between the two groups

Conclusions & implications: A lag from clinical trial to clinical practice is not uncommon for most novel pharmacotherapeutics. However, data from this large, contemporary US hospitalized HF registry show that 4 out of 5 patients with HFrEF, irrespective of type 2 diabetes status are candidates for initiation of dapagliflozin at hospital discharge, supporting broad generalizability to practice. This represents a potential opportunity for in-hospital implementation of evidence-based medical therapies and treatment optimization of stable chronic HFrEF, pending data on safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in acute HF (NCT04363697, NCT04298229, NCT04157751).

References

  1. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(21):1995-2008.
  2. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new treatment for a type of heart failure. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-treatment-type-heart-failure. Accessed on December 1, 2020.
  3. Greene SJ, Fonarow GC, DeVore AD, et al. Titration of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(19):2365-83.
  4. Greene SJ, Butler J, Albert NM, et al. Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The CHAMP-HF Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(4):351-66.
  5. Vaduganathan M, Greene SJ, Zhang S, et al. Applicability of US Food and Drug Administration Labeling for Dapagliflozin to Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in US Clinical Practice: The Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) Registry. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Nov 13:e205864. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.5864
  6. Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8;383(15):1436-1446. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816. Epub 2020 Sep 24. PMID: 32970396.
  7. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1413-24. 32865377.

 

hidden

The Sweet Spot in Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: SGLT2 Inhibitors

I am pleased to have the opportunity to summarize an important recent paper on the use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors by Drs. Muthiah Vaduganathan, Gregg Fonarow, and colleagues in JAMA Cardiology,1 that was published simultaneously with AHA20.

Background:

SGLT2 inhibitors are a class of medications that were initially developed for management of diabetes but were serendipitously found to be effective in treating individuals with heart failure. In May 2020, dapagliflozin became the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after the pivotal Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial, which showed that dapagliflozin reduced heart failure events and mortality.2 In the EMPEROR-Reduced (EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial, use of another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, was also found to reduce risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.3

Major Question Addressed in the Paper: What proportion of contemporary patients with HFrEF in the US are potentially eligible for initiation of dapagliflozin based on the FDA label?

Approach: The investigators studied patients with HFrEF (EF≤40%) who were in the AHA Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry. They assessed patients admitted between January 2014 to September 2019 at 529 sites (started with 586,580 patients). Patients were excluded if they had any of the following based on the FDA label for dapagliflozin: estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at discharge, dialysis (either history of chronic dialysis or required dialysis during hospitalization), and/or type 1 diabetes. After excluding patients who met the aforementioned criteria and those who had missing discharge eGFR or vital signs, the primary study cohort consisted of 154,714 patients at 406 sites.

Major Results:

  • Of the 154,714 patients studied in the GWTG-HF registry, 125,497 (81.1%) were candidates for initiation of dapagliflozin based on the FDA label.
  • When only looking at sites with ≥10 hospitalizations (355 sites that enrolled 154,522 patients), the median proportion of dapagliflozin candidates was still 81.1% (25th-75th percentiles 77.8-84.6%).
  • A higher proportion of patients without type 2 diabetes than with type 2 diabetes were candidates for dapagliflozin (85.5% vs. 75.6%).
  • The most frequent reason for not meeting the FDA label was eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2, which was met more frequently in patients with a history of or new diagnosis of diabetes than those without diabetes (23.9% vs. 14.3%).
  • There was lower use of evidence-based heart failure therapies in the GWTG-HF patients compared to patients in the DAPA-HF trial.

Histogram from Vaduganathan et al. evaluating the proportion of patients meeting the dapagliflozin FDA label criteria from hospitals with at least 10 eligible HFrEF hospitalizations.

Major Study Limitations: Since the GWTG-HF data are de-identified, only unique hospitalization episodes were presented so some patients may be represented more than once in this study. Glycated hemoglobin levels were not measured in a protocolized way, thus type 2 diabetes could be underdiagnosed in this study. Data regarding post-discharge labs and the use of therapies were not available.

Key Take Home Message: This study using a large AHA registry (GWTG-HF) strikingly found that 4 out of 5 adults with HFrEF (regardless of whether the patient has type 2 diabetes) may be eligible for initiation of dapagliflozin, supporting the broad applicability of this therapy in US clinical practice.

For further learning, there are several great OnDemand sessions from AHA20 on SGLT2 inhibitors.

AHA20 OnDemand Sessions on SGLT-2 inhibitors:

  • New Glucose-Lowering Agents with CV Benefits: Working… But How?
  • SGLT2i for Non-Diabetic Indications: Updates from Mega-Trials and Mechanistic Insights
  • Novel Anti-Diabetic Agents: A Tidal Wave of Change in the Cardiovascular Care of Patients with CKD
  • The Heart, the Kidney, and SGLT2 Inhibition: For Clinical Trials to Patient Care

Potential Future Research Directions:

  • Determine the mechanisms leading to the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in HFrEF.
  • Investigate the renal effects of SGLT2 inhibitors and whether SGLT2 inhibitors can be safely used in patients with more severe chronic kidney disease.
    • DAPA-CKD4 (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease), which included patients with eGFR as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m2, showed that dapagliflozin reduced risk of sustained eGFR decline of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.
    • EMPEROR-Reduced included HFrEF patients with eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73 m2.
  • Evaluate whether SGLT2 inhibitors are beneficial in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Current ongoing/future clinical trials with HFpEF patients include DELIVER (NCT03619213), EMPEROR-Preserved (NCT03057951), EMPA-HEART 2 (NCT04461041), PRESERVED-HF (NCT03030235), and EMBRACE-HF (NCT03030222).
  • Assess the effects of simultaneous use of SGLT2 inhibitors and another class of diabetic medications that have shown beneficial cardiovascular disease (CVD) effects, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and determine which of these two classes of medications should be prioritized in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Potential mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors. Figure from Dr. Subodh Verma’s talk entitled “SGLT2 inhibitors: Why do they work” in the “New Glucose-Lowering Agents with CV Benefits: Working… But How?” session at AHA20.

 

References

  1. Vaduganathan M, Greene SJ, Zhang S, Grau-Sepulveda M, DeVore AD, Butler J, Heidenreich PA, Huang JC, Kittleson MM, Joynt Maddox KE, McDermott JJ, Owens AT, Peterson PN, Solomon SD, Vardeny O, Yancy CW, Fonarow GC. Applicability of us food and drug administration labeling for dapagliflozin to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in us clinical practice: The get with the guidelines-heart failure (gwtg-hf) registry. JAMA Cardiol. 2020
  2. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, Ponikowski P, Sabatine MS, Anand IS, Bělohlávek J, Böhm M, Chiang CE, Chopra VK, de Boer RA, Desai AS, Diez M, Drozdz J, Dukát A, Ge J, Howlett JG, Katova T, Kitakaze M, Ljungman CEA, Merkely B, Nicolau JC, O’Meara E, Petrie MC, Vinh PN, Schou M, Tereshchenko S, Verma S, Held C, DeMets DL, Docherty KF, Jhund PS, Bengtsson O, Sjöstrand M, Langkilde AM, Investigators D-HTCa. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1995-2008
  3. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Pocock SJ, Carson P, Januzzi J, Verma S, Tsutsui H, Brueckmann M, Jamal W, Kimura K, Schnee J, Zeller C, Cotton D, Bocchi E, Böhm M, Choi DJ, Chopra V, Chuquiure E, Giannetti N, Janssens S, Zhang J, Gonzalez Juanatey JR, Kaul S, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Merkely B, Nicholls SJ, Perrone S, Pina I, Ponikowski P, Sattar N, Senni M, Seronde MF, Spinar J, Squire I, Taddei S, Wanner C, Zannad F, Investigators E-RT. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1413-1424
  4. Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R, Chertow GM, Greene T, Hou FF, Mann JFE, McMurray JJV, Lindberg M, Rossing P, Sjöström CD, Toto RD, Langkilde AM, Wheeler DC, Investigators D-CTCa. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1436-1446

 

“The views, opinions and positions expressed within this blog are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the American Heart Association. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with them. The Early Career Voice blog is not intended to provide medical advice or treatment. Only your healthcare provider can provide that. The American Heart Association recommends that you consult your healthcare provider regarding your personal health matters. If you think you are having a heart attack, stroke or another emergency, please call 911 immediately.”

hidden

The Clock is Ticking: Door-to-Needle Time in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Lay of the Land

In 2008, after years of being the third-leading cause of death in the United States, stroke dropped to fourth. In part, this reflected the results of a commitment made by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) more than a decade prior to reduce stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular risk by 25% by the year 2010 (a goal met a year early in 2009). The reason for the success, although multifactorial, can largely be attributed to improved prevention and improved care within the first hours of acute strokes.1 As early as 2000, the benefits of time-dependent administration of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in patients with acute ischemic stroke were well supported (Figure 1).2

Figure 1. Graph of model estimating OR for favorable outcome at 3 months in recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) treated patients compared to placebo treated patients by time from stroke onset to treatment (onset-to-treatment time [OTT]) with 95% confidence intervals, adjusting for the baseline NIH Stroke Scale. OR > 1 indicates greater odds that rt-PA treated patients will have a favorable outcome at 3 months compared to the placebo treated patients. Range of OTT was 58 to 180 minutes with mean (μ) of 119.7 minutes.2

Guidelines began recommending a door-to-needle time for tPA administration of 60 minutes or less, however, studies found that less than 30% of US patients were treated within this time window. The Target: Stroke initiative was launched in 2010 to assist hospitals in providing timely tPA. As a result, the proportion of tPA administered within 60 minutes increased from 26.5% during the preintervention period to 41.3% after implementation. Despite national initiatives, shorter door-to-needle times have not been as quickly adopted as door-to-balloon times for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (Figure 2).4 Part of the problem is a lack of robust mortality outcomes data to support trends observed in the (only) two randomized trials conducted to assess long term outcomes with tPA in acute ischemic stroke; neither of which was powered to probe for mortality effects.

Figure 2. Trend in percentage of patients with door-to-balloon (D2B) time <90 minutes over 6 years.4

This brings us to the study published earlier this week in JAMA Man S et al. (corresponding author Fonarow GC) titled “Association Between Thrombolytic Door-to-Needle Time and 1-Year Mortality and Readmission in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke.” This nationwide study of US patients treated with intravenous tPA for acute ischemic stroke demonstrated that shorter door-to-needle times were significantly associated with better long-term outcomes, including lower 1-year all-cause mortality, 1-year all-cause readmission, and the composite of all-cause mortality or readmission at 1 year.5

Study Design

This US cohort included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who were treated with intravenous tPA for acute ischemic stroke at Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)–Stroke participating hospitals between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2016, with 1-year follow-up through December 31, 2017. Patient clinical data were obtained from the GWTG-Stroke database. Study entry criteria required patients to (1) have been aged 65 years or older; (2) have a discharge diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke; (3) have been treated with intravenous tPA within 4.5 hours of the time they were last known to be well; (4) have had a documented door-to-needle time; (5) not have been treated with a concomitant therapy with intra-arterial reperfusion techniques; (6) have had the admission be the first for stroke during the study period; and (7) not have been transferred to another acute care hospital, left against medical advice, or without a documented site of discharge disposition.5 Overall, 61426 participants met the inclusion criteria for the study.

The prespecified primary outcomes included 1-year all-cause mortality, 1-year all-cause readmission, and the composite of all-cause mortality or readmission at 1 year. One-year cardiovascular readmission was a prespecified secondary outcome and was defined as a readmission with a primary discharge diagnosis of hypertension, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, abdominal or aortic aneurysm, valvular disease, and cardiac arrhythmia. Recurrent stroke readmission, a post hoc secondary outcome, was defined as a readmission for transient ischemic attack, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, carotid endarterectomy or stenting, but not for direct complications of index stroke.5

Door-to-needle time was first analyzed using the prespecified times of within 45 minutes and within 60 minutes versus longer than those targets, in line with prior studies on this topic. The authors also ingeniously also evaluated time as a continuous variable, as a categorical variable in 15-minute increments using within 30 minutes as the reference group, and in 45-minute and 60-minute increments. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the associations of door-to-needle timeliness and each 1-year outcome with robust variance estimation to ac- count for the clustering of patients within hospitals.5 On hours were defined as 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on any weekday. Off hours were defined as any other time, including evenings, nights, weekends, and national holidays. The authors did this because prior studies using this prespecified time cutoff have shown that presenting during off hours was associated with inferior quality of care, inferior intravenous thrombolytic treatment, and in-hospital mortality.5

Results

Among the 61426 Medicare beneficiaries treated with intravenous tPA within 4.5 hours of the time they were last known to be well at the 1651 GWTG-Stroke participating hospitals, the median age was 80 years, 43.5% were male, 82.0% were non-Hispanic white, 8.7% were non-Hispanic black, 4.0% were Hispanic, and 5.3% were of other race/ethnicity. More patients that arrived during off hours were treated within longer door-to-needle times (40.7% for ≤30 minutes, 45.6% for 31-45 minutes, 50.6% for 46-60 minutes, 53.5% for 61-75 minutes, and 56.3% for >75 minutes; P < .001). Despite having longer onset-to-arrival times, some patients had shorter onset-to-needle and door-to-needle times.5

Most patients were treated at teaching hospitals (77.7%) and primary stroke centers (73.2%); 3% were treated at rural hospitals. More patients who were treated at teaching hospitals, but not at primary stroke centers, were treated within shorter door-to-needle times. The median door-to-needle time was 65 minutes, with 5.6% of patients treated with tPA within 30 minutes of hospital arrival, 20.8% within 45 minutes, and 44.1% within 60 minutes.5

Patients who received tPA after 45 minutes of hospital arrival had worse long-term outcomes than those treated within 45 minutes of hospital arrival, including significantly higher all-cause mortality (35.0% vs 30.8%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 1.09- 1.18]), higher all-cause readmission (40.8% vs 38.4%; ad- justed HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.12]), higher all-cause mortality or readmission (56.0% vs 52.1%; adjusted HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.12]), and higher cardiovascular readmission (secondary outcome) (19.8% vs 18.4%; adjusted HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00- 1.10]), but not significantly higher recurrent stroke readmission (a post hoc secondary outcome) (9.3% vs 8.8%; adjusted HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.98-1.12]).

Patients who received tPA after 60 minutes of hospital arrival vs within 60 minutes of hospital arrival had significantly higher adjusted all-cause mortality (35.8% vs 32.1%, respectively; adjusted HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.07-1.14]), higher all-cause readmission (41.3% vs 39.1%; adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]), higher all-cause mortality or readmission (56.8% vs 53.1%; adjusted HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.10]), and higher cardiovascular readmission (secondary outcome) (20.2% vs 18.6%; adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.01-1.10]), but not significantly higher recurrent stroke readmission (a post hoc secondary outcome) (9.3% vs 8.9%; adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.97-1.09]).

The absolute differences in outcomes increased with longer door-to-needle times. The cumulative incidence curves showed that approximately 42% of the deaths or readmissions occurred within 30 days.

Every 15-minute increase in door-to-needle times was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.02-1.05] for door-to-needle time within 90 minutes of arrival. However, this association did not persist beyond 90 minutes of hospital arrival. Every 15-minute increase in door-to-needle times was significantly associated with higher all-cause readmission (adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01- 1.03]) and higher all-cause mortality or readmission (adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]). Every 15-minute increase in door-to-needle times after 60 minutes of hospital arrival was significantly associated with higher cardiovascular readmission (secondary outcome) (adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01- 1.04]) and higher stroke readmission (a post hoc secondary out- come) (adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]); however, these associations were not statistically significant for the door-to-needle times within 60 minutes of hospital arrival.

My Take

I would first like to commend the authors on this undertaking. The fact that early door-to-balloon time is still questionable seems contrary to our understanding of ischemic events and time to cell necrosis. This high-quality study further supports the notion that “time is muscle,” as seen in other ischemic events such as acute myocardial infarction and acute limb ischemia. However, the limitations of the study affects its generalizability and application to real world scenarios. The patients in this study are all over the age of 65, largely non-Hispanic whites, all with recorded times of last seen normal and mostly treated in academic centers with stroke units. Nonetheless, the authors have certainly progressed the field of stroke treatment, if even incrementally, in the right direction.

References:

  1. Jauch EC, Saver  JL, Adams  HP  Jr,  et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Council on Clinical Cardiology.  Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.  Stroke. 2013;44(3):870-947.
  2. Marler JR, Tilley  BC, Lu  M,  et al.  Early stroke treatment associated with better outcome: the NINDS rt-PA stroke study.  Neurology. 2000;55(11):1649-1655.
  3. Fonarow GC, Zhao X, Smith EE, et al. Door-to-needle times for tissue plasminogen activator administration and clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke before and after a quality improvement initiative. JAMA. 2014;311(16):1632- 1640. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.3203
  4. Krumholz HM, et al. Improvements in door-to-balloon time in the United States, 2005-2010. Circulation 2011;124:1038-45.
  5. Man S, Xian Y, Holmes DN, et al. Association Between Thrombolytic Door-to-Needle Time and 1-Year Mortality and Readmission in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke. JAMA. 2020;323(21):1-15. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.5697

“The views, opinions and positions expressed within this blog are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the American Heart Association. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with them. The Early Career Voice blog is not intended to provide medical advice or treatment. Only your healthcare provider can provide that. The American Heart Association recommends that you consult your healthcare provider regarding your personal health matters. If you think you are having a heart attack, stroke or another emergency, please call 911 immediately.”