Introduction: Fibrinolysis in stroke should be carried out as soon as possible, but delays occur for various reasons. In the first 17 ischemic infarcts treated in our center we confirmed a tendency to exhaust the therapeutic window. We look now at whether warnings against this tendency, without other logistical or organizational modifications, have had an impact on delays.
Patients and methods: Neurologists were encouraged to avoid procrastination. When we reached 51 treated patients, we compared features and delay times between the first 17 (February, 2002 to June, 2004) and the 17 most recent cases (October, 2005 to April, 2006). Non-parametric tests were used (significant if p < 0.05).
Results: Both groups were similar clinically and demographically. The onset-arrival time lengthened (46 min vs. 75 min; p = 0.01) and scattered. The CT-treatment time halved (57 min vs. 30 min; p = 0.001), with consequent shortening of the 'door-to-needle' period (121 min vs. 90 min; p = 0.002). The arrival-CT time had remained constant (50 min vs. 53 min; p = 0.9), thus the total delay from onset did not change significantly (165 min vs. 170 min; p = 0.7), and the inverse linear correlation between the onset-CT time and the CT-treatment time weakened.
Conclusions: Warnings against procrastination appear to be important in terms of shortening the delays. The time used for clinical-radiologic evaluation (arrival through CT)--about which there had been no action taken--had not been modified, but the time employed in the decision to treat (CT-treatment) and the 'door-to-needle' time had decreased appreciably. This effective compensatory reduction permitted treatment of late-arriving patients, such that although the overall time from onset to treatment apparently was not modified, the actual treatment rate increased.