Deans' stroke musings: tPA for Acute Ischemic Stroke and Its Controversies: A Review

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Monday, April 22, 2019

tPA for Acute Ischemic Stroke and Its Controversies: A Review

They don't bother telling you that the standard of care of using tPA is a failure to get to complete recovery 88% of the time. THAT IS COMPLETELY APPALLING. So they are pushing a failure stroke intervention. I know they consider reperfusion from tPA a success but I consider that only as the first step.

tPA for Acute Ischemic Stroke and Its Controversies: A Review

Brian Dewar MLIS, Michel Shamy, MD, MA, FRCPC

First Published April 14, 2019 Research Article

Abstract

Background and Purpose:

Although neurologists consider intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) to be standard of care in the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke, its use remains contentious within the broader medical community, and particularly among emergency physicians. Why might this be? We provide a historical context to this ongoing controversy by reviewing how neurologists have conceptualized the acute stroke and its treatment, with the aim of bridging this gap.

Methods:

Based on historical sources in the Mackie Family History of Neuroscience Collection at the University of Calgary, as well as online resources, we trace the evolution of the concept of the “acute stroke,” which has come to mean a stroke that is potentially treatable with tPA. We frame this conceptualization in relation to historical “building blocks” in anatomy, pathology, and physiology. We then use these building blocks to explain why neurologists understand tPA to be effective and why emergency physicians often do not.

Results and Conclusions:

Arguments against the use of tPA reiterate 20-year-old concerns about its efficacy and safety. We believe these persistent concerns can be framed as a lack of understanding of the “building blocks” upon which neurologists’ conception of tPA is built. Our view suggests that the way forward to bridge the gap between neurology and other disciplines is not to conduct more trials but to offer a shared conceptualization of the trials already completed and of the intellectual tradition from which they emerged.

Keywords stroke, cerebrovascular disorders, education, techniques, epidemiology, techniques, outcomes, techniques