Background/aim: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of thrombolysis under standard clinical settings between subjects treated by a stroke neurologist versus those treated by a non-neurologist stroke physician.
Methods: Single-centre, observational cohort study of subjects thrombolysed in a calendar year, stratified according to the physician type authorising thrombolysis. Endpoints measured include proportion of subjects with symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, door-to-needle time, change in National Institute of Health Stroke Scale and discharge destination.
Results: Forty-nine subjects with a mean age 76 ± 16 years underwent thrombolysis, 21 were under the care of a stroke neurologist and 28 by a non-neurologist stroke physician. No symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages were observed. There was no difference in terms of door-to-needle time, proportion of individuals with haemorrhagic transformation, mortality or discharge destination between the two groups.
Conclusion: Due to the single-centre, observational nature of this study, the equivalent outcomes between those thrombolysed by a stroke neurologist versus those thrombolysed by a stroke physician must be interpreted with caution pending further studies. Nevertheless, in the current setting, no signal for harm has been detected. This study is unique as it is the first to our knowledge comparing outcomes between a neurologist and non-neurologist following thrombolysis.
Keywords: stroke; stroke neurologist; stroke physician; thrombolysis.
© 2014 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.