Search

Background:Strict criteria for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) eligibility are stipulated on licences for use in ischaemic stroke; however, practitioners may also add non-standard rtPA criteria. We examined eligibility criteria variation in 3 English-speaking countries including use of non-standard criteria, in relation to rtPA treatment rates. Methods:Surveys were mailed to 566 eligible hospitals in Australia (AUS), the UK, and the USA. Criteria were pre-classified as standard (approved indication and contraindications) or non-standard (approved warning or researcher “decoy”). Percentage for criterion selection was calculated/compared; linear regression was used to assess the association between use of non-standard criteria and rtPA treatment rates, and to identify factors associated with addition of non-standard criteria. Results:Response rates were 74% AUS, 65% UK, and 68% USA; mean rtPA treatment rates were 8.7% AUS, 12.7% UK, and 8.7% USA. Median percentage of non-standard inclusions was 33% (all 3 countries) and included National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores > 4, computed tomography (CT) angiography documented occlusion, and favourable CT perfusion. Median percentage of non-standard exclusions was 25% AUS, 28% UK, and 60% USA, and included depressed consciousness, NIHSS > 25, and use of antihypertensive infusions. No AUS or UK sites selected 100% of standard exclusions. Conclusions:Non-standard criteria for rtPA eligibility were evident in all three countries and could, in part, explain comparably low use of rtPA. Differences in the use of standard criteria may signify practitioner intolerance for those derived from original efficacy studies that are no longer relevant.

Purpose There appears to be an association between poor oral hygiene and increased risk of aspiration pneumonia – a leading cause of mortality post-stroke. We aim to synthesise what is known about oral care after stroke, identify knowledge gaps and outline priorities for research that will provide evidence to inform best practice.Methods A narrative review from a multidisciplinary perspective, drawing on evidence from systematic reviews, literature, expert and lay opinion to scrutinise current practice in oral care after a stroke and seek consensus on research priorities. Findings:Oral care tends to be of poor quality and delegated to the least qualified members of the caring team. Nursing staff often work in a pressured environment where other aspects of clinical care take priority. Guidelines that exist are based on weak evidence and lack detail about how best to provide oral care.Discussion Oral health after a stroke is important from a social as well as physical health perspective, yet tends to be neglected. Multidisciplinary research is needed to improve understanding of the complexities associated with delivering good oral care for stroke patients. Also to provide the evidence for practice that will improve wellbeing and may reduce risk of aspiration pneumonia and other serious sequelae.Conclusion Although there is evidence of an association, there is only weak evidence about whether improving oral care reduces risk of pneumonia or mortality after a stroke. Clinically relevant, feasible, cost-effective, evidence-based oral care interventions to improve patient outcomes in stroke care are urgently needed.