Project description:To examine the informed consent process when trained language interpreters are unavailable.Ensuring sufficient patient understanding for informed consent is especially challenging for patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). While US law requires provision of competent translation for LEP patients, such services are commonly unavailable.Qualitative data was collected in 8 prenatal genetics clinics in Texas, including interviews and observations with 16 clinicians, and 30 Latina patients. Using content analysis techniques, we examined whether the basic criteria for informed consent (voluntariness, discussion of alternatives, adequate information, and competence) were evident for each of these patients, contrasting LEP patients with patients not needing an interpreter. We present case examples of difficulties related to each of these criteria, and compare informed consent scores for consultations requiring interpretation and those which did not.We describe multiple communication problems related to the use of untrained interpreters, or reliance on clinicians' own limited Spanish. These LEP patients appear to be consistently disadvantaged in each of the criteria we examined, and informed consent scores were notably lower for consultations which occurred across a language barrier.In the absence of adequate Spanish interpretation, it was uncertain whether these LEP patients were provided the quality and content of information needed to assure that they are genuinely informed. We offer some low-cost practice suggestions that might mitigate these problems, and improve the quality of language interpretation, which is essential to assuring informed choice in health care for LEP patients.
Project description:BackgroundOver one third of stroke patients have cognitive or language deficits such that they require surrogate consent for acute stroke treatment or enrollment into acute stroke trials. Little is known about the agreement of stroke patients and surrogates in this time-sensitive decision-making process. We sought to determine patient and surrogate agreement in 4 hypothetical acute stroke scenarios.MethodsWe performed face to face interviews with ED patients at an academic teaching hospital from June to August 2011. Patients and the surrogates they designated were asked to make decisions regarding 4 hypothetical stroke scenarios: 2 were treatment decisions; 2 involved enrollment into a clinical trial. Percent agreement was calculated as measures of surrogate predictive ability.ResultsA total of 200 patient/surrogate pairs were interviewed. Overall patient/surrogate percent agreement was 76.5%. Agreement for clinical scenarios ranged from 87% to 96% but dropped to 49%-74% for research scenarios.ConclusionsSurrogates accurately predict patient preferences for standard acute stroke treatments. However, the accuracy decreases when predicting research participation suggesting that the degree of surrogate agreement is dependent on the type of decision being made. Further research is needed to more thoroughly characterize surrogate decision-making in acute stroke situations.
Project description:Purpose of reviewTo review the current evidence and ongoing clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase (TNK), an alternative tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), in the acute management of arterial ischemic stroke (AIS). To date, alteplase is the only tPA approved by the United States FDA for use in AIS.Recent findingsThere have been multiple phase two and three trials investigating the safety and efficacy of TNK in AIS. In patients with AIS due to large vessel occlusion, one randomized controlled trial demonstrated superiority of TNK for vessel recanalization rates and long-term functional outcomes when compared to alteplase. A meta-analysis of all phase two and three trials evaluating TNK in AIS concluded that TNK has a comparable safety and efficacy profile to alteplase. The results of these trials prompted new recommendations in the Acute Stroke Guideline published by the AHA suggesting it may be reasonable to use as an alternative to alteplase. Furthermore, recent real-world data has also reported decreased door-to-needle time with TNK utilization.SummaryIn patients with AIS, use of a thrombolytic agent is standard of care and has been shown to reduce neurological disability and improve functional outcome. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that TNK is non-inferior to alteplase from a clinical outcome and safety standpoint. The existing data evaluating the efficacy of TNK compared to alteplase in acute AIS within 4.5 h from symptom onset showed no significant difference between these two agents with regard to functional outcome at 90 days but improved median time to treatment and large vessel recanalization in TNK-treated patients. The results from ongoing TNK trials in larger patient cohorts and in wake-up stroke populations will be instrumental to the wide-scale utilization of TNK in acute AIS management.
Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:No standard approach to obtaining informed consent for stroke thrombolysis with tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) currently exists. We aimed to assess current nationwide practice patterns of obtaining informed consent for tPA. METHODS:An online survey was developed and distributed by e-mail to clinicians involved in acute stroke care. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine independent factors contributing to always obtaining informed consent for tPA. RESULTS:Among 268 respondents, 36.7% reported always obtaining informed consent and 51.8% reported the informed consent process caused treatment delays. Being an emergency medicine physician (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-11.5) and practicing at a nonacademic medical center (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.3) were independently associated with always requiring informed consent. The most commonly cited cause of delay was waiting for a patient's family to reach consensus about treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Most clinicians always or often require informed consent for stroke thrombolysis. Future research should focus on standardizing content and delivery of tPA information to reduce delays.
Project description:For many decades, intravenous (IV) thrombolytics have been delivered to treat acute thrombosis. Although these medications were originally effective for coronary thrombosis, their mechanisms have proven beneficial for many other disease processes, including ischemic stroke. Treatment paradigms for acute ischemic stroke have largely followed those of cardiology. Specifically, the aim has been to recanalize the occluded artery and to restore perfusion to the brain that remains salvageable. To that end, rapid clot lysis was sought using thrombolytic medicines already proven effective in the coronary arteries. IV-thrombolysis for ischemic stroke began its widespread adoption in the late 1990s after the publication of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke study. Since that time, other promising IV-thrombolytics have been developed and tested in human trials, but as of yet, none have been proven better than a placebo. Adjunctive treatments are also being evaluated. The challenge remains balancing reperfusion and salvaging brain tissue with the potential risks of brain hemorrhage.
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether the manner of consent, i.e., informed consent by patients themselves or informed consent by proxy, affects clinical characteristics of samples of acute stroke patients enrolled in clinical trials.MethodsWe analyzed the manner of obtaining informed consent in the first 1,005 patients from WAKE-UP, an investigator-initiated, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of MRI-based thrombolysis in stroke patients with unknown time of symptom onset running in 6 European countries. Patients providing informed consent by themselves were compared with patients enrolled by proxy consent. Baseline clinical measures were compared between groups.ResultsIn 359 (35.7%) patients, informed consent was by proxy. Patients with proxy consent were older (median 71 vs 66 years, p < 0.0001) and had a higher frequency of arterial hypertension (58.2% vs 43.4%, p < 0.0001). They showed higher scores on the NIH Stroke Scale (median 11 vs 5, p < 0.0001) and more frequently aphasia (73.7% vs 20.0%, p < 0.0001). The rate of proxy consent varied among countries (p < 0.0001), ranging from 77.1% in Spain to 1.2% in Denmark.ConclusionsPatients recruited by proxy consent were older, had more severe strokes, and had higher prevalence of aphasia than those with capacity to give personal consent. Variations in the manner of consent across countries may influence trial results.Clinicaltrialsgov and clinicaltrialsregistereu identifiersNCT01525290 (clinicaltrials.gov); 2011-005906-32 (clinicaltrialsregister.eu).
Project description:Despite recent advances in recanalization therapy, mechanical thrombectomy will never be a treatment for every ischemic stroke because access to mechanical thrombectomy is still limited in many countries. Moreover, many ischemic strokes are caused by occlusion of cerebral arteries that cannot be reached by intra-arterial catheters. Reperfusion using thrombolytic agents will therefore remain an important therapy for hyperacute ischemic stroke. However, thrombolytic drugs have shown limited efficacy and notable hemorrhagic complication rates, leaving room for improvement. A comprehensive understanding of basic and clinical research pipelines as well as the current status of thrombolytic therapy will help facilitate the development of new thrombolytics. Compared with alteplase, an ideal thrombolytic agent is expected to provide faster reperfusion in more patients; prevent re-occlusions; have higher fibrin specificity for selective activation of clot-bound plasminogen to decrease bleeding complications; be retained in the blood for a longer time to minimize dosage and allow administration as a single bolus; be more resistant to inhibitors; and be less antigenic for repetitive usage. Here, we review the currently available thrombolytics, strategies for the development of new clot-dissolving substances, and the assessment of thrombolytic efficacies in vitro and in vivo.
Project description:BackgroundObtaining informed consent for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke can be challenging, and little is known about if and how the informed consent procedure is performed by neurologists in clinical practice. This study examines the procedure of informed consent for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke in high-volume stroke centers in the Netherlands.MethodsIn four high volume stroke centers, neurology residents and attending neurologists received an online questionnaire concerning informed consent for thrombolysis with tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA). The respondents were asked to report their usual informed consent practice for tPA treatment and their considerations on whether informed consent should be obtained.ResultsFrom the 203 invited clinicians, 50% (n = 101) completed the questionnaire. One-third of the neurology residents (n = 21) and 21% of the neurologists (n = 8) reported that they always obtain informed consent for tPA treatment. If a patient is not capable of providing informed consent, 30% of the residents (n = 19) reported that they start tPA treatment without informed consent. In these circumstances, 53% of the neurologists (n = 20) reported that the resident under their supervision would start tPA treatment without informed consent. Most neurologists (n = 21; 55%) and neurology residents (n = 45; 72%) obtained informed consent within one minute. None of the respondents used more than five minutes for informed consent. Important themes regarding obtaining informed consent for treatment were patients' capacity, and medical, ethical and legal considerations.ConclusionThe current practice of informed consent for thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke varies among neurologists and neurology residents. If informed consent is obtained, most clinicians stated to obtain informed consent within one minute. In the future, a shortened information provision process may be applied, making a shift from informed consent to informed refusal, while still considering the patient's capacity, stroke severity, and possible treatment delays.