CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03734640Updated Mar 26, 2025

Optimal Post Tpa-Iv Monitoring in Ischemic Stroke

An interventional study of Low-intensity monitoring strategy and Guideline recommended standard monitoring in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Reperfusion Therapy, sponsored by Craig Anderson. Completed at 54 sites in 7 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-03-26.

Sponsored by Craig Anderson · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
4,922
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

OPTIMISTmain is an investigator-initiated and conducted, international, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of different intensities of nursing care monitoring for patients with acute ischemic stroke of mild severity and without critical care needs after IV-tPA.

Read the detailed description

Research question: Patients receiving thrombolytic therapy (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), have been monitored with a high intensity schedule of vital signs and neurologic assessments, which often requires 1:1 nursing and/or admission in an intensive care unit (ICU) or similar ward for at least 24 hours after receiving tPA. Studies indicate that patients with mild degrees of AIS after tPA do not require such intensive monitoring, yet most stroke services continue to follow a practice recommended in guidelines based on the initial cautious evaluation of tPA in AIS over 20 years ago.

Design: Stepped-wedge cluster randomised design. With 3 groups and 4 phases. All groups starting with standard care and in each subsequent phase, groups I through III will switch to the intervention (low-intensity monitoring).

Study centers: This is a global study. Approximately 157 hospitals ('sites') in Australasia, Europe, South American, and North American regions, who are willing to accept the randomized intervention change and adhere to the protocol, collect a required minimum data set on patients over 7 days in hospital (or discharge or death, if sooner), and record any serious adverse event (SAE) during and at clinical outcome assessed at 90 days of follow-up of patients.

Consent/randomization: Hospitals will be eligible if they are using the proposed low-intensity nursing monitoring strategy. A stepped-wedge cluster randomized design has been chosen to avoid contamination, facilitate hospital-wide implementation, and maximize adherence, as the intervention under investigation is to become usual standard of care. The process of one direction (from control to intervention) is to facilitate the low intensity monitoring protocol being applied in clinical practice. The stepped-wedge design means that all hospitals will be randomly allocated to 3 groups: in phase 1, all hospitals will be observed under standard care 'control' conditions according to guideline recommended monitoring; in phase 2, the first cluster of hospitals (Group I) will start receiving the intervention (low-intensity), and then sequentially, Groups II and III will start receiving the interventional package in phase 3 and 4, respectively, so that by phase 4, all hospitals will have the intervention. Those hospitals in Group I are exposed to the intervention for longest time, and those in Group III, the shortest time.

In each phase, hospitals are to maintain a register of all thrombolyzed AIS patients, and to identify all those eligible for, or excluded from participating in the study. Hospitals are required to manage at minimum target of at least 10 consecutive thrombolyzed AIS patients who fulfill the eligibility criteria (presumed 50% of all thrombolyzed AIS patients) over each 4 month period. The recruitment number will vary from 10 to 30 patients, according to seasonal fluctuation and overall numbers of thrombolyzed AIS patients across hospitals. The target number and time limits for each phase will be pre-determined and agreed to with each hospital, to ensure an orderly completion of the study.

On average, for Group I, the time for initiation of the low-intensive intervention is 4 months after activation into phase 1 of the study; for Groups II and III, the time periods for initiation of the low-intensive intervention are 6 and 9 months, after activation, respectively. Data collection will occur at baseline, the first 24 hours, Day 7 (or death or time of hospital discharge, if earlier), and at 90 days (end of follow-up). Patients will be asked to consent to being contacted at some future date to examine long-term outcomes, according to available resources.

A senior executive officer at each center will act as a 'guardian', to provide consent at an institutional level for the intervention to be applied as a 'low risk' intervention to clusters of patients as part of routine care; and written informed consent is to be subsequently obtained from participants, or their approved surrogates, for collection of medical data and participation in the follow-up assessments Randomized allocation of intervention will be assigned by a statistician not otherwise involved in the study according to a statistical program stratified by the country of the site.

Sample size: The sample size required to detect a plausible treatment effect on a clinical outcome in a stepped-wedge trial (3 groups, 4 phases) is 157 hospitals, each recruiting an average of 80 patients (20 per phase), for a total of 12,394 AIS patients. The basis of this calculation is that the study is designed with 90% power (one-sided α = 0.025) to detect non-inferiority (non-inferiority OR margin is 1.25, presumed actual OR is 1.0; the proportion of a bad outcome [mRS 2-6] is 50%) of low-intensity monitoring on the primary outcome. Assuming a stepped-wedge trial of 3 groups and 4 phases, 157 hospitals are required to be randomized into 3 groups of 53 hospitals, each recruiting an average of 16 patients per phase, for a total of 9340 subjects. Assuming 10% with missing primary endpoint data and 5% with nonadherence to randomized treatment, the overall sample size increases to an average of 20 subjects per hospital per phase (i.e. total sample size of 12,394 AIS patients). Allowance will be made to include some very large hospitals (10%, 7) to recruit 50 patients per phase, and smaller hospitals (10%, 7) to recruit 8 patients per phase, in order to allow a broad range of hospitals with variable experience and systems of care for the management of AIS.

02

Conditions studied

  • Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Reperfusion Therapy
03

In context

Stroke

7,286 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,007 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 4,922 is above the median of 50 across 5,369 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with Craig Anderson as lead sponsor.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • adults (age ≥18 years);
  • have received IV alteplase for AIS according to standard criteria;
  • have a mild-moderate level of neurological impairment (e.g. score \<10 on the NIHSS);
  • stable and without any critical care needs at the end of the infusion of alteplase.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • major neurological impairment;
  • definite clinical contraindication or indication to either low-intensity or standard neurological monitoring.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Sequential assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
4,922 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Placebo comparator
    Guideline recommended standard monitoring

    vital signs (HR, BP) and neurological assessment (GCS and NIHSS) 15-30mins x 2 hours, 30mins x 6 hours, 1hourly x 16 hours in usual care monitoring environment

    Other: Guideline recommended standard monitoring

  • Active comparator
    Low-intensity monitoring strategy

    vital signs (HR, BP) and neurological assessment (GCS and/or NIHSS) 15-30mins x 2 hours, 2hourly x 8 hours, 4hourly x 14 hours in a non-ICU ward

    Other: Low-intensity monitoring strategy

Interventions

  • OtherLow-intensity monitoring strategy

    Post-tpa patients will be monitored in a lower intensity with less vital status and neurological assessment

  • OtherGuideline recommended standard monitoring

    Post-tpa patients will be monitored in the usual care monitoring environment

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. modified Rankin scale (mRS); shift analysis across full range of scores

    Physical function measured according to a 7 level categorical scale, where 0-1 indicates no or minimal symptoms, 2-5 indicates increasing levels of disability/dependencey, and 6=death

    Time frame: day 90

Secondary outcomes

  1. frequency of major Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage

    intracerebral hemorrhage on brain imaging associated with significant neurological deterioration or death over 24 hours

    Time frame: day 90

  2. Measures of hospital costs

    to allow economic analysis of treatment interventions at a country level

    Time frame: day 90

  3. any serious adverse event during follow-up

    Time frame: Within 90 days

07

Study locations

54 sites
  • Centura St. Anthony Hospital
    Lakewood, Colorado 80228, United States
  • Centura Littleton Adventist Hospital
    Littleton, Colorado 80122, United States
  • University of Maryland Medical Center
    Baltimore, Maryland 21201, United States
  • The John Hopkins Hospital
    Baltimore, Maryland 21287, United States
  • Howard County General Hospital
    Columbia, Maryland 21044, United States
  • University of Massachusetts Worcester
    Worcester, Massachusetts 01601, United States
  • Henry Ford Health System
    Detroit, Michigan 48202, United States
  • Ascension Providence Hospital
    Novi, Michigan 48374, United States
  • SSM Health DePaul Hospital
    Bridgeton, Missouri 63044, United States
  • Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City
    Kansas City, Missouri 64111, United States
  • Research Medical Center
    Kansas City, Missouri 64132, United States
  • Renown Health
    Reno, Nevada 89502, United States
  • University of Rochester Medical Center
    Rochester, New York 14642, United States
  • Cone Health
    Greensboro, North Carolina 27401, United States
  • OhioHealth Research Institute - Riverside Methodist Hospital
    Columbus, Ohio 43214, United States
  • INTEGRIS Southwest Medical Center
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73109, United States
  • Lehigh Valley Health Network
    Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103, United States
  • Penn State Health
    Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033, United States
  • Inova Fairfax Hospital
    Falls Church, Virginia 22042, United States
  • ThedaCare Regional Medical Center Appleton
    Appleton, Wisconsin 54911, United States
  • Canberra Hospital
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2065, Australia
  • Concord Hospital
    Concord, New South Wales 2139, Australia
  • Nepean Hospital
    Kingswood, New South Wales 2747, Australia
  • St George Public Hospital
    Kogarah, New South Wales 2217, Australia
  • Prince of Wales Hospital
    Randwick, New South Wales 2031, Australia
  • Royal North Shore Hospital
    Sydney, New South Wales 2050, Australia
  • Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
    Sydney, New South Wales 2050, Australia
  • Princess Alexandra Hospital
    Brisbane, Queensland 4102, Australia
  • Fiona Stanley Hospital
    Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia
  • Hospital de Puerto Montt
    Puerto Montt, Los Lagos, Chile
  • Clinica Alemana de Santiago
    Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile
  • Hospital del Pino
    Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile
  • Hospital La Florida Dra. Eloisa Díaz
    Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile
  • Hospital Padre Hurtado
    Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile
  • Hospital Sótero del Rio
    Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile
  • Hospital Base de Osorno
    Osorno, 5290000, Chile
  • Hospital Carlos Van Buren
    Valparaíso, 2352499, Chile
  • Shenyang First People's Hospital
    Shenyang, China
  • Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia
    Kota Bharu, 16150, Malaysia
  • Universiti Kebangssan Malaysia Medical Center
    Kuala Lumpur, 56000, Malaysia
  • Hospital Pengajar Universiti Putra Malaysia (Hpupm)
    Serdang, 43400, Malaysia
  • Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía Manuel Velasco Suarez
    Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico
  • Hospital Regional ISSSTE de Puebla
    Puebla, Mexico
  • Addenbrookes Hospital
    Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom
  • Countess of Chester Hospital
    Chester, CH2 1UL, United Kingdom
  • Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital
    Exeter, EX2 5DW, United Kingdom
  • Leicester Royal Infirmary
    London, LE1 5WW, United Kingdom
  • University College London Hospitals
    London, NW1 2PG, United Kingdom
  • Kings College Hospital
    London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom
  • St George's University Hospitals
    London, SW17 0QT, United Kingdom
  • Luton and Dunstable University Hospital
    Luton, LU4 0DZ, United Kingdom
  • Nottingham University Hospitals
    Nottingham, NG5 1PB, United Kingdom
  • Warnford Hospital
    Oxford, OX3 9DU, United Kingdom
  • Peterborough City Hospital
    Peterborough, PE3 9GZ, United Kingdom
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — 12 months after completion of the study, experienced researchers can seek a copy of the database through requests to the Research Office of The George Institute

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Csr, Analytic code

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 26, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03734640
Lead sponsor
Craig Anderson
Collaborators
Genentech, Inc., Johns Hopkins University, The George Institute for Global Health, Australia
Responsible party
Craig Anderson (Executive Director, The George Institute for Global Health, China) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Nov 8, 2018
Start date
Apr 28, 2021
Primary completion
Dec 1, 2024
Completion
Jan 23, 2025
Last update
Mar 26, 2025

Study contacts

Craig S Anderson, MD PhD
principal investigator · The George Institute
Victor C Urrutia, MD
principal investigator · Johns Hopkins University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion