Published in

American Heart Association, Stroke, 7(40), p. 2568-2571, 2009

DOI: 10.1161/strokeaha.108.538587

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Is it Time to Reassess the SITS-MOST Criteria for Thrombolysis?

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background and Purpose— The Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study (SITS-MOST) established guidelines to increase safety in acute stroke thrombolysis, but precluding treatment in an important proportion of patients. We aimed to assess safety/efficacy of thrombolysis in patients with SITS-MOST exclusion criteria. Methods— 369 nonlacunar tPA-treated patients were studied. Patients were classified as SITS-MOST (SM) or non–SITS-MOST (NSM) according to SITS-MOST–criteria fulfilling. Clinical evaluation was assessed by NIHSS and functional outcome by mRS at 3 months (functional independency=mRS ≤2). Results— Baseline NIHSS was 17. 169 (45.8%) patients were SM and 200 (54.1%) NSM. Recanalization (47.6%/50.3%, P =0.36), 24-hour-improvement (55.6%/49.5%, P =0.114), and SICH were similar (4.8%/5.1%, P =0.554). At discharge, clinical improvement in SM-group was higher (66.7%/55.7%, P =0.024). NSM tended to higher mortality (10.5%/16.1%, P =0.084) and lower functional independence (48.7%/39.6%, P =0.082). Conclusion— Thrombolysis may be safe in patients not fulfilling SITS-MOST criteria. Testing thrombolysis in patients outside SITS-MOST could be considered in the future.