scholarly journals Shortening time to reperfusion after transfer from a primary to a comprehensive stroke center

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 417-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Sablot ◽  
Geoffroy Farouil ◽  
Alexandre Laverdure ◽  
Caroline Arquizan ◽  
Alain Bonafe
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Reperfusion Therapy ◽  
Mri Imaging ◽  
Interhospital Transfer ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Speed Up ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center

BackgroundThis study assessed whether a quality improvement (QI) process to streamline transfer from a primary stroke center (PSC) to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) could reduce the delay of reperfusion by mechanical thrombectomy (MT).MethodsFrom 2015 to 2017, a QI process was implemented with specific interventions to reduce door-in-to-door-out (DIDO) time in a high volume PSC, and speed up interhospital transfer and inhospital processes at the CSC. Clinical characteristics and time metrics were compared in the QI (2015–2017; n = 157) and pre-QI cohorts (2012–2014; n = 121).ResultsDuring the QI process, the median symptom onset to reperfusion time was reduced by 50 minutes (367 vs 417 minutes in the pre-QI cohort, p < 0.04), with a substantial 40-minute DIDO reduction (78 vs 118 minutes, p < 0.01), related to the faster administration of IV thrombolysis (median door-to-needle time: 49 vs 82 minutes, p = 0.0001). The door-to-door time was shortened (170 vs 205 minutes, p = 0.002), but not the transfer time (92 vs 87 minutes, p = 0.5). The QI process had no effect on the prehospital phase (77 vs 76 minutes, p = 0.83) and on the time from MRI imaging at the PSC to reperfusion (252 vs 288 minutes, p = 0.12). The rate of modified Rankin Scale score 0–2 at 90 days was comparable in the pre-QI and QI cohorts.ConclusionsA QI process can reduce the reperfusion therapy delay in a distant CSC; however, we could not demonstrate that it can also improve the outcome of patients who undergo MT.

scholarly journals Thrombectomy accessibility after transfer from a primary stroke center: Analysis of a three-year prospective registry

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 519-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Sablot ◽  
Nicolas Gaillard ◽  
Philippe Smadja ◽  
Jean-Marie Bonnec ◽  
Alain Bonafe
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Interventional Neuroradiology ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Large Artery ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center

Background No comprehensive study exists about mechanical thrombectomy accessibility for patients admitted to a primary stroke center without onsite interventional neuroradiology service. Aims To evaluate mechanical thrombectomy accessibility within 6 h after transfer from a primary stroke center to a distant (156 km apart; 1.5 h by car) comprehensive stroke center. Methods Analysis of data collected in a three-year prospective registry on patients admitted to a primary stroke center within 4.5 h after symptom onset and selected for transfer to a comprehensive stroke center for mechanical thrombectomy. Eligible patients had confirmed proximal arterial occlusion and no large cerebral infarction on MRI images (DWI-ASPECTS ≥ 5). The rate of transfer, transfer without mechanical thrombectomy, mechanical thrombectomy, reperfusion (TICI score ≥ 2b-3), and the main relevant time measures were determined. Results Among the 385 patients selected for intravenous thrombolysis and/or potential mechanical thrombectomy, 211 were considered as transferrable for mechanical thrombectomy. The rate of transfer was 56.4% (n = 119/211), transfer without mechanical thrombectomy 56.3% (n = 67/119), mechanical thrombectomy 24.6% (n = 52/211), and reperfusion by MT (TICI score 2b/3) 18% (n = 38/211). The relevant median times (interquartile range) were: 130 min (62) for intravenous thrombolysis start to comprehensive stroke center door, 95 minutes (39) for primary stroke center door-out to comprehensive stroke center door-in, 191 min (44) for intravenous thrombolysis start to mechanical thrombectomy puncture, 354 min (107) for symptom onset to mechanical thrombectomy puncture and 417 min (124) for symptom onset to recanalization. Conclusions Our study suggests that transfer to a distant comprehensive stroke center is associated with reduced access to early mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke and large artery occlusion. These results could be translated to other high volume distant primary stroke center.

Abstract TP3: What Hospital Characteristics Drive Faster Thrombectomy For Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion (ELVO)?

Stroke ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Tarpley ◽  
Lindsay Lucas ◽  
Joseph T Ho ◽  
Renee Ovando ◽  
Elizabeth Baraban
Keyword(s):  
Arrival Time ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Reperfusion Therapy ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Stroke Registry ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Treatment Volume ◽  
Transferred Patients ◽  
Stroke Center

Introduction: Recent thrombectomy trials for ELVO have reverberated the importance of speed in reperfusion therapy. Identifying hospital practices and features associated with faster door to thrombectomy times is critical to evolving our hospital systems to effectively deliver this powerful therapy. Methods: A multi-hospital, Get with the Guidelines stroke registry was used to identify AIS patients who received intra-arterial (IA) intervention between January 2012 and May 2016. Transferred patients were excluded since their door to reperfusion times don’t typically include a primary evaluation. Patients were categorized as having door to reperfusion (Door-to-IA) time over 135 minutes or Door-to-IA time below or equal to 135 minutes. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify which of the following variables were associated with Door-to-IA times over 135 minutes: age, gender, IV alteplase treatment, admit NIHSS score, patient arrival time to hospital, hospital certification (primary stroke center (PSC) versus comprehensive stroke center (CSC)), hospital annual IA treatment volume, and hospital annual percentage of transfers for thrombectomy. Results: We identified 229 AIS patients from ten hospitals who received IA intervention between January 2012 and May 2016. Of those, 49% (n=113) had Door-to-IA times over 135 minutes and 51% (n=116) had Door-to-IA time below or equal to 135 minutes. Patients with Door-to-IA times over 135 minutes were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.02 per year; p=.040), treated at a PSC (AOR = 2.26; p=.028), and treated at a hospital with a higher percentage of transfers (AOR = 1.08 per percentage point; p<.001). IV-alteplase treatment, gender, NIHSS, patients’ arrival time and volume were not significant. Conclusion: Comprehensive stroke centers had shorter Door-to-IA times than Primary Stroke Centers in our system. However, hospital annual IA treatment volume did not impact Door-to-IA and centers with larger transfer volume actually had worse Door-to-IA times for patients evaluated and treated locally. This suggests that high volume centers with a larger volume of transferred patients may have tuned their practices to treating transfers rather than treating local ELVO patients.

Abstract 1122‐000137: Characteristics and Utilization of Acute Reperfusion Therapy after Transfer of In‐Hospital LVO Strokes

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahul Rao ◽  
Conor Kelly ◽  
Shashvat Desai ◽  
Ashutosh Jadhav
Keyword(s):  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Reperfusion Therapy ◽  
Artery Occlusion ◽  
Basilar Artery Occlusion ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center ◽  
Iv Tpa

Introduction : Acute repercussion therapy for acute ischemic stroke is a crucial tool in the tertiary care setting for patients presenting with large vessel occlusion (LVO). While strokes that present from the community have favorable outcomes compared to in‐hospital strokes, it is unclear if this is because of greater access to endovascular therapy. We aim to characterize the utilization of endovascular reperfusion therapy for in‐house LVO and compare outcomes of in‐house LVOs to those presenting from the community. Methods : From the period of December 2013 to December 2019, all stroke patients with an LVO who presented to a primary stroke center (“spoke” hospital) who were transferred to a comprehensive stroke center (“hub”) were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. Results : A total of 181 in‐house strokes were transferred from a peripheral center to our comprehensive stroke center. About 16% (29) received IV‐tPA at the OSH and 2 additional patients received IV‐tPA at the CSC [17%; n = 31]. 163 patients harbored an intracranial acute vessel occlusion. Anterior LVO (ICA, M1,M2) and basilar artery occlusion was observed in 64% (n = 116) patients and 6% (n = 11) patients, respectively [Total LVO‐ 70%; n = 127]. 20% (n = 27) of LVO received IV‐tPA and 72% (n = 91) of LVO underwent thrombectomy. Reasons for not receiving included symptoms improved (25%), repeat imaging made reperfusion inadvisable (72.2%) and poor baseline (2.8%). Rates of mRS 0–2 in patients with ICA/M1/M2 receiving EVT were 13% (13/100) and the mortality rate was 45% (46/103). Rates of mRS 0–2 were significantly lower [13% vs 38%, p<0.01] and mortality was significantly higher [45% vs 18%, p<0.01] amongst anterior LVO in‐house transfer patients receiving EVT compared to all anterior LVO patients receiving EVT in the given time period. Conclusions : A relatively large proportion of in‐house LVO stroke patients underwent thrombectomy (70%). Most common cause of not receiving thrombectomy was imaging findings showing completed or large infarct. Compared to their community stroke counterparts, in‐house LVO strokes had lower efficacy outcomes and higher mortality. Further study in required to understand these findings.

scholarly journals Pre- and Interhospital Workflow Times for Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Transferred for Endovasvular Thrombectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura C. C. van Meenen ◽  
Frank Riedijk ◽  
Jeffrey Stolp ◽  
Bas van der Veen ◽  
Patricia H. A. Halkes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Large Vessel ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Large Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Interhospital Transfer ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center

Background: Patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke are often initially admitted to a primary stroke center (PSC) and subsequently transferred to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This interhospital transfer delays initiation of EVT. To identify potential workflow improvements, we analyzed pre- and interhospital time metrics for patients with LVO stroke who were transferred from a PSC for EVT.Methods: We used data from the regional emergency medical services and our EVT registry. We included patients with LVO stroke who were transferred from three nearby PSCs for EVT (2014–2021). The time interval between first alarm and arrival at the CSC (call-to-CSC time) and other time metrics were calculated. We analyzed associations between various clinical and workflow-related factors and call-to-CSC time, using multivariable linear regression.Results: We included 198 patients with LVO stroke. Mean age was 70 years (±14.9), median baseline NIHSS was 14 (IQR: 9–18), 136/198 (69%) were treated with intravenous thrombolysis, and 135/198 (68%) underwent EVT. Median call-to-CSC time was 162 min (IQR: 137–190). In 133/155 (86%) cases, the ambulance for transfer to the CSC was dispatched with the highest level of urgency. This was associated with shorter call-to-CSC time (adjusted β [95% CI]: −27.6 min [−51.2 to −3.9]). No clinical characteristics were associated with call-to-CSC time.Conclusion: In patients transferred from a PSC for EVT, median call-to-CSC time was over 2.5 h. The highest level of urgency for dispatch of ambulances for EVT transfers should be used, as this clearly decreases time to treatment.

scholarly journals Mechanical thrombectomy for reperfusion of acute ischemic stroke in a Stroke Unit in Argentina

2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-43
Author(s):  
Matías ALET ◽  
Federico Rodríguez LUCCI ◽  
Sebastián AMERISO
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Time Window ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Reperfusion Therapy ◽  
Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center ◽  
Iv Tpa

Abstract Stroke is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Reperfusion therapy with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) was first implemented in 1996. More recently, endovascular reperfusion with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) demonstrated a robust beneficial effect, extending the 4.5 h time window. In our country, there are difficulties to achieve the implementation of both procedures. Objective: Our purpose is to report the early experience of a Comprehensive Stroke Center in the use of MT for acute stroke. Methods: Analysis of consecutive patients from January 2015 to September 2018, who received reperfusion treatment with MT. Demographic data, treatment times, previous use of IV-tPA, site of obstruction, recanalization, outcomes and disability after stroke were assessed. Results: We admitted 891 patients with acute ischemic stroke during this period. Ninety-seven received IV-tPA (11%) and 27 were treated with MT (3%). In the MT group, mean age was 66.0±14.5 years. Median NIHSS before MT was 20 (range:14‒24). The most prevalent etiology was cardioembolic stroke (52%). Prior to MT, 16 of 27 patients (59%) received IV-tPA. Previous tPA treatment did not affect onset to recanalization time or door-to-puncture time. For MT, door-to-puncture time was 104±50 minutes and onset to recanalization was 289±153 minutes. Successful recanalization (mTICI grade 2b/3) was achieved in 21 patients (78%). At three-month follow-up, the median NIHSS was 5 (range:4‒15) and mRS was 0‒2 in 37%, and ≥3 in 63%. Conclusions: With adequate logistics and strict selection criteria, MT can be implemented in our population with results like those reported in large clinical trials.

Abstract WMP9: Procedural Parameters Predicting Reduced MRI Infarct Growth in Mechanical Thrombectomy

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nirmal Andrapalliyal ◽  
Bhageeradh Mulpur ◽  
Lacy Samuel Handshoe ◽  
Ken Uchino ◽  
M. Shazam Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Infarct Volume ◽  
Region Of Interest ◽  
Mri Imaging ◽  
Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center ◽  
Procedural Outcomes ◽  
Number Of Passes

Background: Successful recanalization after a single pass and shorter procedural duration during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) have been associated with both rapid neurologic improvement and long-term clinical outcome, although conflicting data exists regarding their direct effect on infarct growth. We aimed to determine whether less device passes or shorter procedural times are associated with decreased infarct growth. Methods: We reviewed consecutive patients presenting to a comprehensive stroke center from January 2016 to December 2018 with (ELVO). Standard protocol included pre-procedural MRI imaging and only those with post-procedural MRI were included in this study. Number of passes attempted and procedural times were recorded. Infarct volume on MRI was measured using region of interest analysis blinded to procedural outcomes. MRI infarct growth was analyzed using linear regression as a function of procedural times and number of passes. Results: Of 173 patients undergoing MT after MRI, 118 patients had MRI imaging post-procedure. Successful recanalization (TICI >2b) was achieved in 106/118 patients. For each additional minute of procedural duration, MRI infarct growth increased by 0.23 mL (p=.04). Average MRI infarct growth was different amongst the passes (p=0.001): 14.65 mL in cases with only one pass (n=67), 25.67 mL with two passes (n=26), 28.68 mL with three passes (n=17), and 98.42 mL with four or greater passes (n=8). Conclusion: Longer procedural duration and increased number of passes are associated with increased MRI infarct growth.

Effect of “drip-and-ship” and “drip-and-drive” on endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion: a single-center retrospective study

2021 ◽  
pp. 028418512110068
Author(s):  
Yu Hang ◽  
Zhen Yu Jia ◽  
Lin Bo Zhao ◽  
Yue Zhou Cao ◽  
Huang Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Large Vessel ◽  
Large Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center

Background Patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO) were usually transferred from a primary stroke center (PSC) to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) for endovascular treatment (drip-and-ship [DS]), while driving the doctor from a CSC to a PSC to perform a procedure is an alternative strategy (drip-and-drive [DD]). Purpose To compare the efficacy and prognosis of the two strategies. Material and Methods From February 2017 to June 2019, 62 patients with LVO received endovascular treatment via the DS and DD models and were retrospectively analyzed from the stroke alliance based on our CSC. Primary endpoint was door-to-reperfusion (DTR) time. Secondary endpoints included puncture-to-recanalization (PTR) time, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) rates at the end of the procedure, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days. Results Forty-one patients received the DS strategy and 21 patients received the DD strategy. The DTR time was significantly longer in the DS group compared to the DD group (315.5 ± 83.8 min vs. 248.6 ± 80.0 min; P < 0.05), and PTR time was shorter (77.2 ± 35.9 min vs. 113.7 ± 69.7 min; P = 0.033) compared with the DD group. Successful recanalization (mTICI 2b/3) was achieved in 89% (36/41) of patients in the DS group and 86% (18/21) in the DD group ( P = 1.000). Favorable functional outcomes (mRS 0–2) were observed in 49% (20/41) of patients in the DS group and 71% (15/21) in the DD group at 90 days ( P = 0.089). Conclusion Compared with the DS strategy, the DD strategy showed more effective and a trend of better clinical outcomes for AIS patients with LVO.

How do treatment times impact on functional outcome in stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy in Germany? Results from the German Stroke Registry

2021 ◽  
pp. 174749302098526
Author(s):  
Juliane Herm ◽  
Ludwig Schlemm ◽  
Eberhard Siebert ◽  
Georg Bohner ◽  
Anna C Alegiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Poor Functional Outcome ◽  
Stroke Registry ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center ◽  
Center Time

Background Functional outcome post-stroke depends on time to recanalization. Effect of in-hospital delay may differ in patients directly admitted to a comprehensive stroke center and patients transferred via a primary stroke center. We analyzed the current door-to-groin time in Germany and explored its effect on functional outcome in a real-world setting. Methods Data were collected in 25 stroke centers in the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment a prospective, multicenter, observational registry study including stroke patients with large vessel occlusion. Functional outcome was assessed at three months by modified Rankin Scale. Association of door-to-groin time with outcome was calculated using binary logistic regression models. Results Out of 4340 patients, 56% were treated primarily in a comprehensive stroke center and 44% in a primary stroke center and then transferred to a comprehensive stroke center (“drip-and-ship” concept). Median onset-to-arrival at comprehensive stroke center time and door-to-groin time were 103 and 79 min in comprehensive stroke center patients and 225 and 44 min in primary stroke center patients. The odds ratio for poor functional outcome per hour of onset-to-arrival-at comprehensive stroke center time was 1.03 (95%CI 1.01–1.05) in comprehensive stroke center patients and 1.06 (95%CI 1.03–1.09) in primary stroke center patients. The odds ratio for poor functional outcome per hour of door-to-groin time was 1.30 (95%CI 1.16–1.46) in comprehensive stroke center patients and 1.04 (95%CI 0.89–1.21) in primary stroke center patients. Longer door-to-groin time in comprehensive stroke center patients was associated with admission on weekends (odds ratio 1.61; 95%CI 1.37–1.97) and during night time (odds ratio 1.52; 95%CI 1.27–1.82) and use of intravenous thrombolysis (odds ratio 1.28; 95%CI 1.08–1.50). Conclusion Door-to-groin time was especially relevant for outcome of comprehensive stroke center patients, whereas door-to-groin time was much shorter in primary stroke center patients. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03356392 . Unique identifier NCT03356392

Abstract W P292: A Comparative Analysis of the Requirements for Certification of Stroke Programs, by Type and by Nationally Recognized Certifying Body

Stroke ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey Lang
Keyword(s):  
Selection Process ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Program Leaders ◽  
Primary Stroke Center ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Certification Organizations ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center ◽  
Core Measures ◽  
Certification Requirements

Background and Purpose: There are currently three main, nationally recognized organizations that certify facilities as primary or comprehensive stroke centers. One of these organizations also offers a “Stroke Ready” designation. While each of these organizations share many of the same requirements, there are likewise many unique requirements between certifying bodies with respect to the certification requirements, process, performance, and on-going expectations. All should be considered when choosing a partner for certification by organizations that are committed to achieving an appropriate level of certification as determined by clinical capabilities. Differences in core measure requirements and definitions, data collection expectations and re-certification cycles among other factors are often overlooked when stroke program leaders are identifying the best certification partner for their particular organization. This poster will detail the similarities and differences among the various stroke program certifying organizations and present a detailed methodology to assist program leaders with the partner selection process. Methods: The three stroke program certifying organizations were examined for review cycles, levels of certification offered, requirements related to hospital certifications, and reportable core measures. Other factors such as cost, the actual certification process, and other considerations that may impact the successful achievement of certification within a particular organization were also reviewed. Results/Conclusion: While there are many similarities in the stroke center certification requirements and processes among the three certifying organizations, there are also significant differences. In order to ensure that the end product of a journey to certification will align with a hospital’s values, budget, and vision for the stroke program, an evaluation process in advance of certifying body selection is essential. Awareness of the similarities and differences among the stroke certification organizations can facilitate a hospital’s decision-making process for pursuit of certification as a stroke ready center, primary stroke center or comprehensive stroke center

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document