Mothership versus Drip-and-Ship for stroke in a rural area: A French prospective observational study.

Abstract

Background: The availability of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is limited. Thus, there are two paradigms for patients living closer to a primary stroke center (PSC) than a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) capable of MT: "Mothership" (direct referral to a CSC) and "Drip-and-Ship" (referral to a PSC for imaging and thrombolysis and transfer to a CSC for thrombectomy or monitoring). We aimed to compare the prognosis of patients at three months between the two paradigms in a rural area.

Materials: From September 2019 to March 2021, we prospectively included patients living closer to a PSC than the one CSC, regardless of the type of stroke or reperfusion treatment. The proportion of patients with a good functional outcome (Rankin≤2) at three months was compared between the two initial orientations for all patients and for subgroups: patients with ischemic stroke and patients treated by MT.

Results: Among the 206 patients included, 103 were admitted directly to the CSC (82.5% had an ischemic stroke and 24.3% a MT) and 103 initially admitted to a PSC and then transferred to the CSC (100% had an ischemic stroke and 52.4% a MT). The proportion of patients with a good outcome was comparable between the two groups (54.5% vs. 43.7%, P=0.22). Among the 79 patients who underwent MT, the prognosis at three months was better in the Mothership group (49.3% vs. 15.3%, P=0.01).

Conclusion: The functional prognosis is comparable between Mothership and Drip-and-Ship paradigms in our setting, despite a trend towards a better prognosis for the Mothership. As has been shown in urban settings, the mothership paradigm also leads to a better prognosis for patients treated with MT in a rural setting.