Door-to-needle time for thrombolysis : a secondary analysis of the TIPS cluster randomised controlled trial

Md Golam Hasnain; Christine L. Paul; John R. Attia; Annika Ryan; Erin Kerr; Catherine D'Este; Alix Hall; Abul Hasnat Milton; Isobel J. Hubbard; Christopher R. Levi

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032482

Door-to-needle time for thrombolysis : a secondary analysis of the TIPS cluster randomised controlled trial

Md Golam Hasnain, Christine L. Paul, John R. Attia, Annika Ryan, Erin Kerr, Catherine D'Este, Alix Hall, Abul Hasnat Milton, Isobel J. Hubbard, Christopher R. Levi

Western Sydney University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the effects of a multi-component in-hospital intervention on the door-to-needle time for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. Design: This study was a post hoc analysis of door-to-needle time data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial testing an intervention to boost intravenous thrombolysis implementation. Setting: The study was conducted among 20 hospitals from three Australian states. Participant: Eligible hospitals had a Stroke Care Unit or staffing equivalent to a stroke physician and a nurse, and were in the early stages of implementing thrombolysis. Intervention: The intervention was multifaceted and developed using the behaviour change wheel and informed by breakthrough collaborative methodology using components of the health behaviour change wheel. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome for this analysis was door-to-needle time for thrombolysis and secondary outcome was the proportion of patients received thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival. Results: The intervention versus control difference in the door-to-needle times was non-significant overall nor significant by hospital classification. To provide additional context for the findings, we also evaluated the results within intervention and control hospitals. During the active-intervention period, the intervention hospitals showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 9.25 min (95% CI: -16.93 to 1.57), but during the post-intervention period, the result was not significant. During the active intervention period, control hospitals also showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 5.26 min (95% CI: -8.37 to -2.14) and during the post-intervention period, this trend continued with a decrease of 12.13 min (95% CI: -17.44 to 6.81). Conclusion: Across these primary stroke care centres in Australia, a secular trend towards shorter door-to-needle times across both intervention and control hospitals was evident, however the TIPS (Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke) intervention showed no overall effect on door-to-needle times in the randomised comparison.

Original language	English
Article number	e032482
Number of pages	9
Journal	BMJ Open
Volume	9
Issue number	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032482
Publication status	Published - 2019

Open Access - Access Right Statement

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032482

Cite this

@article{8d2f9e2d36d64d35a1530608643efcc8,

title = "Door-to-needle time for thrombolysis : a secondary analysis of the TIPS cluster randomised controlled trial",

abstract = "Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the effects of a multi-component in-hospital intervention on the door-to-needle time for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. Design: This study was a post hoc analysis of door-to-needle time data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial testing an intervention to boost intravenous thrombolysis implementation. Setting: The study was conducted among 20 hospitals from three Australian states. Participant: Eligible hospitals had a Stroke Care Unit or staffing equivalent to a stroke physician and a nurse, and were in the early stages of implementing thrombolysis. Intervention: The intervention was multifaceted and developed using the behaviour change wheel and informed by breakthrough collaborative methodology using components of the health behaviour change wheel. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome for this analysis was door-to-needle time for thrombolysis and secondary outcome was the proportion of patients received thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival. Results: The intervention versus control difference in the door-to-needle times was non-significant overall nor significant by hospital classification. To provide additional context for the findings, we also evaluated the results within intervention and control hospitals. During the active-intervention period, the intervention hospitals showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 9.25 min (95% CI: -16.93 to 1.57), but during the post-intervention period, the result was not significant. During the active intervention period, control hospitals also showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 5.26 min (95% CI: -8.37 to -2.14) and during the post-intervention period, this trend continued with a decrease of 12.13 min (95% CI: -17.44 to 6.81). Conclusion: Across these primary stroke care centres in Australia, a secular trend towards shorter door-to-needle times across both intervention and control hospitals was evident, however the TIPS (Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke) intervention showed no overall effect on door-to-needle times in the randomised comparison.",

author = "Hasnain, {Md Golam} and Paul, {Christine L.} and Attia, {John R.} and Annika Ryan and Erin Kerr and Catherine D'Este and Alix Hall and Milton, {Abul Hasnat} and Hubbard, {Isobel J.} and Levi, {Christopher R.}",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032482",

language = "English",

volume = "9",

journal = "BMJ Open",

issn = "2044-6055",

publisher = "BMJ Group",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Door-to-needle time for thrombolysis : a secondary analysis of the TIPS cluster randomised controlled trial

AU - Hasnain, Md Golam

AU - Paul, Christine L.

AU - Attia, John R.

AU - Ryan, Annika

AU - Kerr, Erin

AU - D'Este, Catherine

AU - Hall, Alix

AU - Milton, Abul Hasnat

AU - Hubbard, Isobel J.

AU - Levi, Christopher R.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the effects of a multi-component in-hospital intervention on the door-to-needle time for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. Design: This study was a post hoc analysis of door-to-needle time data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial testing an intervention to boost intravenous thrombolysis implementation. Setting: The study was conducted among 20 hospitals from three Australian states. Participant: Eligible hospitals had a Stroke Care Unit or staffing equivalent to a stroke physician and a nurse, and were in the early stages of implementing thrombolysis. Intervention: The intervention was multifaceted and developed using the behaviour change wheel and informed by breakthrough collaborative methodology using components of the health behaviour change wheel. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome for this analysis was door-to-needle time for thrombolysis and secondary outcome was the proportion of patients received thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival. Results: The intervention versus control difference in the door-to-needle times was non-significant overall nor significant by hospital classification. To provide additional context for the findings, we also evaluated the results within intervention and control hospitals. During the active-intervention period, the intervention hospitals showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 9.25 min (95% CI: -16.93 to 1.57), but during the post-intervention period, the result was not significant. During the active intervention period, control hospitals also showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 5.26 min (95% CI: -8.37 to -2.14) and during the post-intervention period, this trend continued with a decrease of 12.13 min (95% CI: -17.44 to 6.81). Conclusion: Across these primary stroke care centres in Australia, a secular trend towards shorter door-to-needle times across both intervention and control hospitals was evident, however the TIPS (Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke) intervention showed no overall effect on door-to-needle times in the randomised comparison.

AB - Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the effects of a multi-component in-hospital intervention on the door-to-needle time for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. Design: This study was a post hoc analysis of door-to-needle time data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial testing an intervention to boost intravenous thrombolysis implementation. Setting: The study was conducted among 20 hospitals from three Australian states. Participant: Eligible hospitals had a Stroke Care Unit or staffing equivalent to a stroke physician and a nurse, and were in the early stages of implementing thrombolysis. Intervention: The intervention was multifaceted and developed using the behaviour change wheel and informed by breakthrough collaborative methodology using components of the health behaviour change wheel. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome for this analysis was door-to-needle time for thrombolysis and secondary outcome was the proportion of patients received thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival. Results: The intervention versus control difference in the door-to-needle times was non-significant overall nor significant by hospital classification. To provide additional context for the findings, we also evaluated the results within intervention and control hospitals. During the active-intervention period, the intervention hospitals showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 9.25 min (95% CI: -16.93 to 1.57), but during the post-intervention period, the result was not significant. During the active intervention period, control hospitals also showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 5.26 min (95% CI: -8.37 to -2.14) and during the post-intervention period, this trend continued with a decrease of 12.13 min (95% CI: -17.44 to 6.81). Conclusion: Across these primary stroke care centres in Australia, a secular trend towards shorter door-to-needle times across both intervention and control hospitals was evident, however the TIPS (Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke) intervention showed no overall effect on door-to-needle times in the randomised comparison.

UR - https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:64793

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032482

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032482

M3 - Article

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 9

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

IS - 12

M1 - e032482

ER -

Door-to-needle time for thrombolysis : a secondary analysis of the TIPS cluster randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this