scholarly journals Feasibility of an Ambulance-Based Stroke Trial, and Safety of Glyceryl Trinitrate in Ultra-Acute Stroke

Stroke ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (11) ◽  
pp. 3120-3128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandeep Ankolekar ◽  
Michael Fuller ◽  
Ian Cross ◽  
Cheryl Renton ◽  
Patrick Cox ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip M Bath ◽  
Polly Scutt ◽  
Jason P Appleton ◽  
Mark Dixon ◽  
Lisa J Woodhouse ◽  
...  

Background High blood pressure is common in acute stroke and associated with a worse functional outcome. Glyceryl trinitrate, a nitric oxide donor, lowers blood pressure in acute stroke and may improve outcome. Aims Rapid Intervention with Glyceryl trinitrate in Hypertensive stroke Trial-2 (RIGHT-2) tested the feasibility of performing a UK multicenter ambulance-based stroke trial, and the safety and efficacy of glyceryl trinitrate when administered by paramedics before hospital admission. Methods Paramedic-led ambulance-based multicenter prospective randomized single-blind blinded-endpoint parallel-group controlled trial of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (given for four days) versus sham in patients with ultra-acute (<4 h) presumed stroke. Data are number (%), median (interquartile range) or mean (standard deviation). Results Recruitment ran from October 2015 to 31 May 2018. A total 1149 patients were recruited from eight UK ambulance services and taken to 54 acute hospitals. Baseline characteristics include: mean age 73 (15) years; female 555 (48%); median time from stroke to randomization 70 (45, 115) min; face-arm-speech scale score 2.6 (0.5); and blood pressure 162 (25)/92 (18) mmHg. The final diagnosis was ischemic stroke 52%, hemorrhagic stroke 13%, Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) 9%, and mimic 25%. The main trial results will be presented in quarter 4 2018. The results will also be included in updated Cochrane systematic reviews, and individual patient data meta-analyses of all relevant randomized controlled trials. Conclusion It was feasible to perform a multicenter ambulance-based ultra-acute stroke trial in the UK and to treat with glyceryl trinitrate versus sham. The relatively unselected cohort of stroke patients is broadly representative of those admitted to hospital in the UK. Trial registration ISRCTN26986053.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason P Appleton ◽  
Polly Scutt ◽  
Mark Dixon ◽  
Harriet Howard ◽  
Lee Haywood ◽  
...  

Rationale Vascular nitric oxide levels are low in acute stroke and donors such as glyceryl trinitrate have shown promise when administered very early after stroke. Potential mechanisms of action include augmentation of cerebral reperfusion, thrombolysis and thrombectomy, lowering blood pressure, and cytoprotection. Aim To test the safety and efficacy of four days of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (5 mg/day) versus sham in patients with ultra-acute presumed stroke who are recruited by paramedics prior to hospital presentation. Sample size estimates The sample size of 850 patients will allow a shift in the modified Rankin Scale with odds ratio 0.70 (glyceryl trinitrate versus sham, ordinal logistic regression) to be detected with 90% power at 5% significance (two-sided). Design The Rapid Intervention with Glyceryl trinitrate in Hypertensive stroke Trial-2 (RIGHT-2) is a multicentre UK prospective randomized sham-controlled outcome-blinded parallel-group trial in 850 patients with ultra-acute (≤4 h of onset) FAST-positive presumed stroke and systolic blood pressure ≥120 mmHg who present to the ambulance service following a 999 emergency call. Data collection is performed via a secure internet site with real-time data validation. Study outcomes The primary outcome is the modified Rankin Scale measured centrally by telephone at 90 days and masked to treatment. Secondary outcomes include: blood pressure, impairment, recurrence, dysphagia, neuroimaging markers of the acute lesion including vessel patency, discharge disposition, length of stay, death, cognition, quality of life, and mood. Neuroimaging and serious adverse events are adjudicated blinded to treatment. Discussion RIGHT-2 has recruited more than 500 participants from seven UK ambulance services. Status Trial is ongoing. Funding British Heart Foundation. Registration ISRCTN26986053.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Polly Scutt ◽  
Jason P Appleton ◽  
Mark Dixon ◽  
Lisa J Woodhouse ◽  
Nikola Sprigg ◽  
...  

Rationale: Glyceryl trinitrate, a nitric oxide donor, is a candidate treatment for acute stroke; it lowers blood pressure, does not alter cerebral blood flow or platelet function and is neuroprotective in experimental stroke. The ongoing rapid intervention with glyceryl trinitrate in hypertensive stroke trial-2 trial aims to assess the safety and efficacy of paramedic-delivered glyceryl trinitrate in patients with ultra-acute stroke. Aims and design: The rapid intervention with glyceryl trinitrate in hypertensive stroke trial-2 trial is a multicentre UK-based prospective randomised sham-controlled outcome-blinded parallel-group trial in patients with presumed stroke who present to the ambulance service following a 999 emergency call. The primary outcome is the modified Rankin scale measured by central telephone follow-up at 90 days. Results This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the rapid intervention with glyceryl trinitrate in hypertensive stroke trial-2 trial and was developed prior to unblinding to treatment allocation. The statistical analysis plan includes details of methods for analyses and unpopulated tables and figures to be included in the primary and other secondary publications. Discussion Statistical analysis plan details what analyses will be done prior to unblinding to treatment allocation to avoid bias in the findings. Rapid intervention with glyceryl trinitrate in hypertensive stroke trial-2 trial will determine whether glyceryl trinitrate administered ultra-acutely can improve outcome after stroke. The rapid intervention with glyceryl trinitrate in hypertensive stroke trial-2 trial is registered as ISRCTN26986053.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e043591
Author(s):  
Beng Leong Lim ◽  
Wei Feng Lee ◽  
Wei Ming Ng ◽  
Wei Ling Tay ◽  
Wui Ling Chan

IntroductionHigh blood pressure (BP) in acute stroke has adverse outcomes. Transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) has beneficial properties in controlling BP. The 2016 meta-analysis and 2017 Cochrane review showed that transdermal GTN was beneficial in a small patient subgroup with stroke onset ≤6 hours. Larger studies focusing on this patient subgroup have since been conducted. We report the protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and benefits of transdermal GTN in acute stroke.Methods and analysisWe will search Medline, Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library from inception until June 2020 for randomised trials that report the efficacy and safety of transdermal GTN versus placebo/control therapy among adult patients with acute stroke. Primary outcomes include in-hospital mortality, BP lowering and late functional status. Secondary outcomes include early, late, resource utilisation and surrogate outcomes. Safety outcomes include reported adverse events. Reviewers will first screen titles and abstracts, and then full texts, to identify eligible studies. Independently and in duplicate, they will extract data, assess risk of bias (RoB) using a modified Cochrane RoB tool and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Disagreement will be resolved by discussion and consultation with an external reviewer if necessary. Using a random-effects model, we will report effect sizes using relative risks and 95% CIs. We will perform predefined subgroup analyses: intracerebral haemorrhage versus ischaemic stroke; minor (NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) ≤five) versus major (NIHSS >five) ischaemic stroke; ischaemic stroke with versus without thrombolysis; prehospital versus non-prehospital settings; time from stroke to randomisation ≤6 versus >6 hours and high versus low overall RoB studies. We will also perform trial sequential analysis for the primary outcomes.Ethics and disseminationEthics board approval is unnecessary. PROSPERO registration has been obtained. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020173093.


Stroke ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan McEvoy ◽  
Jason Tehranisa ◽  
William J Meurer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The communication of adaptive clinical trials can be more difficult due to the increased complexity of the design itself, especially in an emergent, time-sensitive setting such as with acute stroke patients. We hypothesized that introducing brief, comprehension questions into a video explaining a hypothetical acute stroke trial would improve the understanding of the trial allocation procedure and increase patient participation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of adult patients presenting to the emergency department. After obtaining verbal consent, patients were randomized to one of four groups: They watched a video with either an RAR or a standard hypothetical acute stroke trial, with or without the addition of interactive comprehension questions. These questions addressed research procedures relevant to the consent process and operation of the trial. Subjects were asked whether they would consent to the trial and if they could identify the method of randomization and allocation used. RESULTS: A total of 720 patients were enrolled. A significantly higher proportion of individuals in the RAR interactive video group (85.9%) correctly identified the trial allocation method assigned versus the RAR uninterrupted video group (60.4%), absolute increase: 25.5% (95% confidence interval, 17-33%). Additionally, there was significantly higher trial participation in the RAR interactive video group (table). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating structured comprehension questions into the consent process of a hypothetical acute stroke trial increased understanding of the RAR trial design and further attracted more research participation. Improving the communication of the trial procedures within a simulated situation that mimics the rapid discussion regarding an emergency research trial is beneficial and should be incorporated into future acute stroke trials


2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfonso Ciccone ◽  
Cristina Motto ◽  
Elisabetta Aritzu ◽  
Alessandra Piana ◽  
Livia Candelise

Stroke ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Tehranisa ◽  
William J Meurer

Introduction: Acute stroke trials may be improved by using response-adaptive randomization (RAR) because it works in favor of the trial population on average. With RAR, the ratio of participants assigned to each trial arm is adjusted to favor the better performing treatment using outcome information from earlier participants in the clinical trial. Hypothesis: When presented a hypothetical acute stroke trial, more patients would agree to a RAR versus a standard clinical trial with all other aspects of trial held constant. Methods: This cross-sectional survey included adult ED patients presenting without stroke or other critical illness. A standardized protocol was used and subjects were randomized to view either an RAR or standard hypothetical acute stroke trial. After viewing the video describing the hypothetical trial (http://youtu.be/cKIWduCaPZc), reviewing the consent form, and having questions answered, subjects indicated whether they would consent to the trial. Adequacy of the informed consent process was measured by ICQ-4. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to estimate the impact of RAR, while controlling for demographic factors and patient understanding of the design. Results: A total of 418 subjects (210 standard 208 RAR) were enrolled. All baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. There was significantly higher participation in the RAR trial (67.3%) versus the standard trial (54.5%), absolute increase: 12.8% (95% CI: 3.7 to 22.2%). The trials were generally well understood by the participants (Table); however standard randomization appeared to be better understood. The RAR group had a higher odds ratio of agreeing to research (O.R. 1.89, 95% CI [1.2 - 2.9]), while adjusting for patient level factors. Conclusion: The RAR trial attracted more research participation than standard randomization and has potential to increase recruitment and offer benefit to future trial participants.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document