Background:
While single center and regional estimates of thrombolytic administration using drip and ship treatment paradigm are available, patient outcomes, thrombolytic utilization, cost, and referral patterns has not been assessed in United States.
Objective:
To provide national estimates of patients treated with thrombolytics using drip and ship paradigm and determine the impact of drip and ship treatment on regional thrombolytic utilization, treatment cost, and referral patterns of acute stroke patients in a large cohort.
Methods:
We determined the proportion of patients treated with drip and ship paradigm among all acute ischemic stroke patients treated with thrombolytic treatment and obtained comparative in-hospital outcomes from the Nationwide Inpatient Survey (NIS) data files from October 2008 to December 2009. All the in-hospital outcomes were analyzed after adjusting for potential confounders using multivariate analysis. Thrombolytic utilization, hospitalization cost, and patterns of referral related to drip and ship treatment of acute stroke were estimated.
Results:
Of the 26,814 ischemic stroke patients who received thrombolytic treatment, 5144 (19%) were treated using drip and ship paradigm. Seventy nine percent of all the drip and ship treated patients were referred to urban teaching hospitals for further care, and 7% of them received follow up endovascular treatment at the referral facility. States with higher proportion of patients treated using the drip and ship paradigm had higher rates of thrombolytic utilization (3.1% vs. 2.4%, p<0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, presence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and hospital teaching status, outcomes of patients treated with drip and ship paradigm was similar to those who received thrombolytic and stayed in the same facility: self care (odds ratio [OR], 1.055, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.910-1.224, p=0.4779); death(OR , 0.821 95% CI, 0.619- 1.088, p=0.1688); and nursing home discharge (OR, 1.023, 95% CI, 0.880- 1.189, p=0.7659) at discharge. Drip and ship paradigm was associated with shorter hospital stay (mean [days, SE] 5.9± 0.18 vs. 7.4 ± 0.15, p<0.001), and lower cost of hospitalization (mean total charges [$, SE) 57,000 ± 3,324 vs. 83,000 ± 3,367, p<0.001).
Conclusions:
One out of every five patients who received thromboytic treatment in United States is currently treated using drip and ship paradigm with comparable adjusted rates of favorable outcomes.
There was a
higher rates of thrombolytic utilization in States where drip and ship was more commonly implemented.
765: CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND HOSPITAL OUTCOMES AMONG YOUNG ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE PATIENTS
