ABSTRACT
Background While there is evidence to support the viability of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) as treatments for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) even in the very elderly, there are practical considerations to be made regarding triage and resource allocation, particularly in a hub-and-spoke system of stroke intervention.
Methods This is a cross-sectional study using stroke quality registry data from 2017-2021 at a comprehensive stroke center serving as the primary hub for an associated healthcare system. We identified patients aged 90 or above who received acute stroke treatment with IVT and/or MT. NIHSS, modified Rankin Score (mRS), transfer status, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition were examined.
Results Out of 268 total nonagenarians admitted for AIS, 60 received an acute intervention (37 IVT, 14 MT, 9 both). All MT attempts resulted in successful reperfusion (>TICI2b). Median initial and discharge mRS were 2 and 5 respectively; only 3.3% were discharged home, with 46.7% of patients either deceased or discharged to hospice. Median LOS was 5 days (range 0-77), but prolonged LOS was common, with 11 patients having LOS >14 days. Comparing the groups who received MT vs. IVT alone, the median initial NIHSS was 17 vs. 15 (p=0.23); the MT group had better baseline mRS (1 vs 3, p=0.005), but despite this, there were no significant differences in mortality (57% vs 41%) or discharge mRS (5 vs. 5). Median LOS was not significantly different (6 vs. 5 days). Mortality in MT was 75% for transfers vs. 53% for local arrivals (p=0.36).
Conclusion Despite safe and technically successful treatment, outcomes were poor overall in the nonagenarian population after both MT +/- IVT, with very high morbidity and mortality.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work, collection of data, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Rutgers University waived ethical approval for this work (exempt review - IRB protocols Pro2021001569 and Pro2019002879)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The deidentified data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, RC, upon reasonable request.
