Trends in Reperfusion Therapy for In-Hospital Ischemic Stroke in the Endovascular Therapy Era.


Importance:A significant proportion of acute ischemic strokes occur while patients are hospitalized. Limited contemporary data exist on the utilization rates of intravenous thrombolysis or endovascular therapy for in-hospital stroke. Objective:To use a national registry to examine temporal trends in the use of intravenous and endovascular reperfusion therapies for treatment of in-hospital stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 267 956 patients who underwent reperfusion therapy for stroke with in-hospital or out-of-hospital onset reported in the Get With the Guidelines-Stroke national registry from January 2008 to September 2018. Exposures:In-hospital onset vs out-of-hospital onset of stroke symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures:Temporal trends in the use of reperfusion therapy, process measures of quality, and the association between functional outcomes and key patient characteristics, comorbidities, and treatments. Results:Of 67 493 patients with in-hospital stroke onset, this study observed increased rates of vascular risk factors (standardized mean difference >10%) but no significant differences in age or sex in patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis only (mean [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 72 [80-62] y; 53.2% female) or those undergoing endovascular therapy (mean [IQR] age, 69 [59-79] y; 49.8% female). Of these patients, 10 481 (15.5%) received intravenous thrombolysis and 2494 (3.7%) underwent endovascular therapy. Compared with 2008, in 2018 the proportion of in-hospital stroke among all stroke hospital discharges was higher (3.5% vs 2.7%; P < .001), as was use of intravenous thrombolysis (19.1% vs 9.1%; P < .001) and endovascular therapy (6.4% vs 2.5%; P < .001) in patients with in-hospital stroke, with a significant increase in endovascular therapy in mid-2015 (P < .001). Compared with patients who received intravenous thrombolysis for out-of-hospital stroke onset, those with in-hospital onset were associated with longer median (IQR) times from stroke recognition to cranial imaging (33 [18-60] vs 16 [9-26] minutes; P < .001) and to thrombolysis bolus (81 [52-125] vs 60 [45-84] minutes; P < .001). In adjusted analyses, patients with in-hospital stroke onset who were treated with intravenous thrombolysis were less likely to ambulate independently at discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82; P < .001) and were more likely to die or to be discharged to hospice (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.29-1.50; P < .001) than patients with out-of-hospital onset who also received intravenous thrombolysis treatment. Comparisons among patients treated with endovascular therapy yielded similar findings. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cohort study, in-hospital stroke onset was increasingly reported and treated with reperfusion therapy. Compared with out-of-hospital stroke onset, in-hospital onset was associated with longer delays to reperfusion and worse functional outcomes, highlighting opportunities to further care for patients with in-hospital stroke onset.






Published Version (Please cite this version)


Publication Info

Akbik, Feras, Haolin Xu, Ying Xian, Shreyansh Shah, Eric E Smith, Deepak L Bhatt, Roland A Matsouaka, Gregg C Fonarow, et al. (2020). Trends in Reperfusion Therapy for In-Hospital Ischemic Stroke in the Endovascular Therapy Era. JAMA neurology. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3362 Retrieved from

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.


Haolin Xu

Biostatistician, Senior

Ying Xian

Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Neurology

Shreyansh Shah

Assistant Professor of Neurology

Roland Albert Matsouaka

Associate Professor of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics

Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.