Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

ACEP’s stroke policy fuels discussion and debate

By Kevin Klauer, D.O. & By Andy S. Jagoda, M.D. | on April 1, 2013 | 0 Comment
From the College
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Guidelines for tPA – An alternate view

Just as there is division in our specialty regarding tPA for ischemic stroke, diversity of opinion exists within the ACEP leadership ranks. Following the Board’s approval of this new clinical policy, in the spirit of transparency, ACEP leadership asked me to draft the minority opinion on this topic.

You Might Also Like
  • ACEP to Reconsider Clinical Policy on Use of Intravenous tPA to Manage Acute Ischemic Stroke in the ED
  • Recommendation to Update tPA Policy Approved by ACEP Board
  • ACEP Clinical Policy on Intravenous Tissue Plasmogen for Stroke Continues to Evolve
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 32 – No 04 – April 2013

With respect to clinical guidelines, one size must fit all. When considerable controversy exists and reasonable minds can disagree on the interpretation of the available evidence, then perhaps drafting a guideline is not only impossible but also inappropriate. Development of guidelines should be a search for scientific truth, a truth that can be applied by all. The ultimate goal of any guideline is to provide guidance once the dust has settled from debate and a clear right answer has emerged. If not accepted by all, or even most, consensus has not been reached. Caution must be taken by those drafting guidelines for the many, to avoid amplification of the perspectives of the few.

ACEP’s recent clinical policy regarding the administration of tPA for ischemic stroke is an excellent example of a topic, fraught with controversy and a lack of consensus, which results in maneuvering a square peg into a round hole. Forcing premature closure and drawing early conclusions, while the clinical evidence and science are still being debated and are in evolution, is ill advised. The fact that the panel could reach consensus is less than comforting, when it is possible that at least as many experts in our field share a perspective in direct opposition to the panel’s conclusions.

I have to compliment the Clinical Policies Committee for attempting to accomplish the impossible, given a task that was unattainable. It seems that this question was asked when no reasonable consensus could possibly be reached. Spending 8 years to craft a policy on a topic of such complexity heightens the likelihood of creating bias. Establishing a false standard of care and disenfranchising those not in support of its conclusions are inevitable consequences. Another Herculean request made of the commit- tee was to draft this policy to meet the needs, not only of all emergency physicians, but also neurologists. From a purely political perspective, this makes wonderful sense, and building bridges with other specialties is generally a good thing. Remarkably, emergency physicians and neurologists have usually not shared the same perspective on this issue. So, the fact that this committee was tasked with collaborating with the American Academy of Neurology may have foreshadowed its shortcomings before pen was put to paper. Perhaps, the salient question is: Why was the committee charged with such a task in the first place?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Topics: ACEPACEP CouncilAmerican College of Emergency PhysiciansClinical GuidelineCommentaryCritical CareEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianPoint/CounterpointStroke

Related

  • ACEP Clinical Policy on Thrombolytics for Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke

    July 3, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • ACEP4U: The ACEP Council Shapes Policy, Advances the Mission

    June 30, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Push-Dose Pressors in the Emergency Department

    June 29, 2025 - 1 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: July 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “ACEP’s stroke policy fuels discussion and debate”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603