Stroke is in the top five leading causes of death in the
United States killing thousands of people, especially more common in older
people. It is a common brain damage that may be causes by different factors
such as a blood clotting or other obstruction in an artery, which is called
ischemia. Or also, it can be causes by rupturing an artery, called hemorrhage.
Throughout the years, medicinal treatments have been increasing and getting
better, and cures for major diseases have been found. This has been done throughout
many trial and experimental procedures.
One immediate treatment physicians can perform on patients
with ischemia, is to give them a drug called tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)
which breaks up blood clots and prevents the obstruction of blood flow in the
arteries, within 3 hours of getting a stroke. This can be very helpful for the
patient because it can get rid of all the blood clots cause by the stroke, but
at the same time is such a risky treatment in a way that doctors won’t be sure
if to give this drug to the patients unless they perform an MRI to determine if
it’s a ischemia or hemorrhage stroke.
My question is, would you let one of your relatives receive
this drug if physicians are not one hundred percent sure if it will work
effectively or not, if they are not putting the patients life on risk?
Performing an MRI on a patient that has had a stroke it’s a lengthy procedure,
and in order for the tPA and other treatments to be more effectively they have
to be within a short period of time such as also cooling the brain to prevent a
brain damage right after a stroke, or exposure to cannabinoids which minimizes
also the damage cause by strokes.
Even though hemorrhage is a less common type of stroke, it
is very fatal and giving the patient tPA, the risk of making the hemorrhage
worse is small compared to the hope of alleviating ischemia. This is basically
like tossing a coin if an MRI is not performed in order to figure out if the
patient had an ischemia or hemorrhage. If you give the medication to patient
with ischemia, the chances of alleviating them will be higher than if it had a
hemorrhage. What would you let the physician of your relative with a stroke do
in such a case like that?
This video shows some benefits and risks of the drug tissue plasminogen activator.
The toughest part about having a stroke is that most people don't even realize they have had one. This fact makes it harder to give the correct medication due to time constraints. Like you said if it is ischemia the drug tPA can be administered, but if it is a ruptured artery or hemorrhage that medication can be fatal. If I was faced with the decision I would probably take tPA because the most common type of stroke is ischemia, and take a chance.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your question, I feel like if a relative of mine, or even if I, was suffering from a stroke I would more than likely allow for the physician to administer tPA. It's a risky situation, but it seems more proactive than waiting for the results of an MRI, which like you've mentioned, is a pretty lengthy procedure. Although we wouldn't know whether the stroke was due to a hemorrhage or to ischemia, the fact that ischemia is more common (thus allowing for tPA to work) and that the risk of making a hemorrhage worse (because of the use of tPA) is small, my stand on this position increases for the use of the drug. After watching the video and really thinking about this situation, I essentially feel like the benefits outweigh the risks by a slight margin, but that's just the way I see it.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, I think I would wait for the MRI results to get back. I know that time is essential in these situations but I would rather take the safe side rather than risking it. In the video, it says that it's not that much of a difference when administering the drug versus not doing so. I wouldn't be so quick to explore or take chances when it comes to another life in danger.
ReplyDelete