Advance preferences regarding thrombolysis in patients at risk for stroke: a cross-sectional study: table 1
Ó Flatharta, T. Khan, A. Walsh, T. O’Donnell, M. O’Keefe, S.T.
Ó Flatharta, T.
Khan, A.
Walsh, T.
O’Donnell, M.
O’Keefe, S.T.
Identifiers
http://hdl.handle.net/10379/11510
https://doi.org/10.13025/28787
https://doi.org/10.13025/28787
Repository DOI
Publication Date
2014-07-04
Type
Article
Downloads
Citation
Ó Flatharta, T. Khan, A.; Walsh, T.; O’Donnell, M.; O’Keefe, S.T. (2014). Advance preferences regarding thrombolysis in patients at risk for stroke: a cross-sectional study: table 1. QJM 108 (1), 27-31
Abstract
Background: It is difficult to obtain informed consent for thrombolysis in stroke patients given the emergency setting, the need for a speedy decision and the effects of neurological deficits. Aim: To determine the advance preferences for thrombolysis of patients at risk for stroke following discussion of the potential risks and benefits. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Data on benefits and risks of thrombolysis within 3 h and between 3 and 4.5 h after stroke were presented orally, in writing and pictorially to patients attending geriatric and stroke services in a teaching hospital with specified stroke risk factors and preferences for thrombolysis were recorded. Results: Of the 121 participants, 108 (89.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 82.4-93.7) would opt for thrombolysis within the 3-h period and 100 (82.6%; 95% CI 74.9-88.4) within the 3- to 4.5-h period after acute stroke (P = 0.04, McNemar's test for correlated proportions). Previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack was more common among those who agreed to thrombolysis (54.1% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.04) and those who opted for thrombolysis were significantly more likely to agree to have their preferences recorded and used in the event of a stroke than those who refused thrombolysis (88.8% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.002). Conclusion: Advance discussion of the potential risks and benefits of thrombolysis in at-risk patients may improve decision making if thrombolysis is being considered and the patient can no longer make a decision.
Funder
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Publisher DOI
Rights
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland