Haemin Go / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Categories: Podcast, ED First Patient Contact, Care Team, EM, Neuro, Nursing, Pharm, Stroke Team, Time From Stroke, 01_< 6 hrs, Topics, Controversies, Tx Approach, Types Of Content, Podcast, Testing, Triage & Disability Assessment, Care Team, EM, Neuro, Stroke Team, Fibrinolytic Therapy, Care Team, EM, Hosp Med, Neuro, Neurophys, Stroke Team, Diagnosis, IS, Topics, Controversies, EBM, IV Rx, Lytic Therapy, Standard Care, Treatments, Types of Content, Podcast, ICU & Critical Care, Care Team, Critical Care, Hosp Med, Neuro, Stroke Team, Topics, Bleeding, Controversies, EBM, Types of Content, Podcast, Content Types, Podcast Why Is the Extended Window Controversial and What Happened With the FDA? Moderator: William A. Knight IV, MD, FACEP, FNCS Other Participants: Stacie L. Demel, DO, PhD The ECASS 3 trial was an RCT of IV-rtPA in the window of 3-4.5 hrs after onset of stroke symptoms. It was conducted in Europe. The European regulatory bodies have endorsed tPA for that window, but the FDA has not. Listen to two national experts in stroke discuss the trial and the meaning of the endorsement or lack thereof. This podcast is a must for acute stroke practitioners! Previous Article IV tPA for Acute Strokes in Patients with COVID - What Does the Limited Evidence Mean? Next Article Tips and Tricks for Posterior Circulation Stroke Identification Print 11120 Rate this article: No rating 2 comments on article "Why Is the Extended Window Controversial and What Happened With the FDA?" Ken Milne I watched the video on ECASS-III and you mentioned the controversy in this time window. However, there was no mention of Alper et al reanalysis in the BMJ_EBM that questioned the results? Can you comment? https://ebm.bmj.com/content/25/5/168 9/26/2021 8:32 AM Ken Milne Here was some of our feedback on Alper et al https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/08/10/bmjebm-2020-111517 9/27/2021 8:50 AM Please login or register to post comments.
Ken Milne I watched the video on ECASS-III and you mentioned the controversy in this time window. However, there was no mention of Alper et al reanalysis in the BMJ_EBM that questioned the results? Can you comment? https://ebm.bmj.com/content/25/5/168 9/26/2021 8:32 AM
Ken Milne Here was some of our feedback on Alper et al https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/08/10/bmjebm-2020-111517 9/27/2021 8:50 AM