Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine appointments are available to our patients. Sign up for Connect today to schedule your vaccination. Continue your routine care with us by scheduling an in-person appointment or Video Visit.

Temporal Trends in the Use of Acute Recanalization Therapies for Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Cancer.

TitleTemporal Trends in the Use of Acute Recanalization Therapies for Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Cancer.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2019
AuthorsChatterjee A, Merkler AE, Murthy SB, Burch JE, Chen ML, Gialdini G, Kamel H, Ballman KV, Navi BB
JournalJ Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis
Volume28
Issue8
Pagination2255-2261
Date Published2019 Aug
ISSN1532-8511
KeywordsAdministration, Intravenous, Aged, Brain Ischemia, Comorbidity, Databases, Factual, Endovascular Procedures, Female, Fibrinolytic Agents, Healthcare Disparities, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Stroke, Thrombolytic Therapy, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, United States
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the US nationwide temporal trends in recanalization therapy utilization for ischemic stroke among patients with and without cancer.

METHODS: We identified all acute ischemic stroke (AIS) hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample from January 1, 1998 to September 30, 2015. The primary exposure was solid or hematologic cancer. The primary outcome was use of intravenous thrombolysis. The secondary outcome was use of endovascular therapy (EVT).

RESULTS: Among 9,508,804 AIS hospitalizations, 503,510 (5.3%) involved cancer patients. Intravenous thrombolysis use among ischemic stroke patients with cancer increased from .01% (95% confidence interval [CI], .00%-.02%) in 1998 to 4.91% (95% CI, 4.33%-5.48%) in 2015, whereas intravenous thrombolysis use among ischemic stroke patients without cancer increased from .02% (95% CI, .01%-.02%) in 1998 to 7.22% (95% CI, 6.98%-7.45%) in 2015. The demographic- and comorbidity-adjusted odds ratio/year of receiving intravenous thrombolysis was similar in patients with cancer (1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.23) versus those without (1.20; 95% CI, 1.19-1.21). EVT use among ischemic stroke patients with cancer increased from .05% (95% CI, .02%-.07%) in 2006 to 1.90% (95% CI, 1.49%-2.31%) in 2015, whereas EVT use among ischemic stroke patients without cancer increased from .09% (95% CI, .00%-.18%) in 2006 to 1.88% (95% CI, 1.68%-2.09%) in 2015.

CONCLUSIONS: Among 9.5 million AIS hospitalizations, patients with cancer received intravenous thrombolysis about two thirds as often as patients without cancer. This difference persisted over time despite increased utilization in both groups. EVT utilization was similar between cancer and non-cancer AIS patients.

DOI10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.05.009
Alternate JournalJ Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis
PubMed ID31153762
PubMed Central IDPMC6679738
Grant ListK23 NS091395 / NS / NINDS NIH HHS / United States

Weill Cornell Medicine Neurology 525 E. 68th St.
PO Box 117
New York, NY 10065 Phone: (212) 746-6575