EMS Bypass to Endovascular Stroke Centers is Associated with Shorter Time to Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy for LVO Stroke.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Alexander Kuc, Ryan Overberger, Derek L Isenberg, Kevin A Henry, Huquing Zhao, Adam Sigal, Susan Wojcik, Joseph Herres, Ethan Brandler, Jason T Nomura, Chadd K Kraus, Daniel Ackerman, Arianna Peluso, Nina Gentile
{"title":"EMS Bypass to Endovascular Stroke Centers is Associated with Shorter Time to Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy for LVO Stroke.","authors":"Alexander Kuc, Ryan Overberger, Derek L Isenberg, Kevin A Henry, Huquing Zhao, Adam Sigal, Susan Wojcik, Joseph Herres, Ethan Brandler, Jason T Nomura, Chadd K Kraus, Daniel Ackerman, Arianna Peluso, Nina Gentile","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2388882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes may be eligible for treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular therapy (EVT). Patients selected for treatment have better neurologic outcomes with EVT, and delays in this therapy lead to worse outcomes. However, EVT is offered at a limited number of hospitals, referred to as endovascular stroke centers (ESC). This poses a difficult decision for EMS: to take potential stroke patients to the closest primary stroke center (PSC) or longer transport time to a more distant ESC. We hypothesized that patients with LVO stroke undergoing EVT transported directly to an ESC would have more favorable outcomes as measured by the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days, compared to transport to a PSC followed by transfer to an ESC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The OPUS-REACH consortium examined transportation patterns and outcomes in patients with LVO stroke who received endovascular treatment. This cohort includes 2400 patients with LVO stroke throughout eight endovascular centers in the Northeast U.S. from 2015 to 2020. All patients enrolled in the OPUS-REACH database were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they were missing the pickup address, had an in-hospital stroke, or arrived <i>via</i> mobile stroke unit. The remaining patients were separated into two groups: the bypass group, with transportation by EMS to an ESC by bypassing PSC, and the non-bypass group, with initial transport to PSC and interfacility transport to an ESC. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days, where 0-2 was defined as \"good\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome did not reach significance with 40% of the bypass group as compared with the 33.1% of the non-bypass group having a \"good\" outcome. However, the bypass group underwent shorter times from last-known-well to both thrombolysis (120.9 vs 153.3 min, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and thrombectomy (356.1 vs 454.8 min, <i>p</i> = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with LVO stroke who undergo thrombectomy, EMS transport directly to an ESC results in shorter time thrombectomy, although we did not observe a difference in 90-day functional outcomes. Additionally, bypass to reach a more capable endovascular stroke center does not delay administration of IVT from time of LKW.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2388882","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes may be eligible for treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular therapy (EVT). Patients selected for treatment have better neurologic outcomes with EVT, and delays in this therapy lead to worse outcomes. However, EVT is offered at a limited number of hospitals, referred to as endovascular stroke centers (ESC). This poses a difficult decision for EMS: to take potential stroke patients to the closest primary stroke center (PSC) or longer transport time to a more distant ESC. We hypothesized that patients with LVO stroke undergoing EVT transported directly to an ESC would have more favorable outcomes as measured by the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days, compared to transport to a PSC followed by transfer to an ESC.

Methods: The OPUS-REACH consortium examined transportation patterns and outcomes in patients with LVO stroke who received endovascular treatment. This cohort includes 2400 patients with LVO stroke throughout eight endovascular centers in the Northeast U.S. from 2015 to 2020. All patients enrolled in the OPUS-REACH database were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they were missing the pickup address, had an in-hospital stroke, or arrived via mobile stroke unit. The remaining patients were separated into two groups: the bypass group, with transportation by EMS to an ESC by bypassing PSC, and the non-bypass group, with initial transport to PSC and interfacility transport to an ESC. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days, where 0-2 was defined as "good".

Results: The primary outcome did not reach significance with 40% of the bypass group as compared with the 33.1% of the non-bypass group having a "good" outcome. However, the bypass group underwent shorter times from last-known-well to both thrombolysis (120.9 vs 153.3 min, p < 0.001) and thrombectomy (356.1 vs 454.8 min, p = 0.001).

Conclusions: In patients with LVO stroke who undergo thrombectomy, EMS transport directly to an ESC results in shorter time thrombectomy, although we did not observe a difference in 90-day functional outcomes. Additionally, bypass to reach a more capable endovascular stroke center does not delay administration of IVT from time of LKW.

急救分流到血管内卒中中心与缩短 LVO 卒中溶栓和取栓时间有关。
目的:大血管闭塞性脑卒中(LVO)可能符合静脉溶栓(IVT)和血管内治疗(EVT)的治疗条件。被选中接受治疗的患者接受 EVT 治疗的神经功能预后更好,而延误治疗则会导致预后更差。然而,只有少数医院提供 EVT,这些医院被称为血管内卒中中心(ESC)。这给急救服务带来了一个艰难的抉择:是将潜在的卒中患者送往最近的初级卒中中心(PSC),还是送往距离更远的 ESC 需要更长的转运时间。我们假设,与先转运至初级卒中中心再转运至 ESC 相比,直接转运至 ESC 并接受 EVT 治疗的 LVO 卒中患者 90 天后的改良 Rankin 评分(mRS)结果更佳:OPUS-REACH 联合会研究了接受血管内治疗的 LVO 中风患者的转运模式和预后。该队列包括 2015 年至 2020 年期间在美国东北部 8 个血管内治疗中心接受治疗的 2400 名 LVO 中风患者。所有加入 OPUS-REACH 数据库的患者均符合纳入条件。如果患者缺少接诊地址、发生院内卒中或通过移动卒中单元到达,则排除在外。其余患者分为两组:绕行组,由急救中心绕过急诊中心转运至急诊中心;非绕行组,最初转运至急诊中心,然后在医院间转运至急诊中心。主要结果是90天后的改良Rankin量表(mRS),0-2分为 "良好":主要结果并不显著,搭桥组 40% 的结果为 "良好",而非搭桥组只有 33.1% 的结果为 "良好"。然而,搭桥组患者从最后一次已知井到两次溶栓的时间更短(120.9 分钟对 153.3 分钟,P 结论:搭桥组患者从最后一次已知井到两次溶栓的时间更短(120.9 分钟对 153.3 分钟,P 结论):对于接受血栓切除术的低密度脂蛋白血栓性脑卒中患者,急救车直接送往 ESC 可缩短血栓切除时间,但我们并未观察到 90 天功能预后的差异。此外,绕道到达能力更强的血管内卒中中心并不会延迟从 LKW 开始的 IVT 治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信