Door-to-Needle Optimization in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Review of Rapid Emergency Department Interventions.

Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-09-06 DOI:10.26502/fccm.92920503
Fihr Chaudhary, Nasr Chaudhary, Sahil Afzal, Devendra K Agrawal
{"title":"Door-to-Needle Optimization in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Review of Rapid Emergency Department Interventions.","authors":"Fihr Chaudhary, Nasr Chaudhary, Sahil Afzal, Devendra K Agrawal","doi":"10.26502/fccm.92920503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute ischemic stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and the benefit of intravenous thrombolysis decays steeply with time while its hemorrhagic risk does not. That asymmetry makes the door-to-needle interval, measured from emergency department arrival to administration of the thrombolytic bolus, one of the few determinants of stroke outcome that can be improved without new technology or additional resources. This review synthesizes the evidence underlying door-to-needle optimization. It begins with the quantified biology of delay, in which roughly 1.9 million neurons are lost for every minute of untreated large-vessel ischemia, and with the pooled randomized data showing that the number needed to treat for one additional good outcome rises from approximately five within ninety minutes to approximately fifteen at the outer edge of the 4.5-hour window. It then examines how the interval should be measured, arguing that the mean and the minimum door-to-needle time must both be reported because they describe different properties of the same system. Prehospital determinants of delay, including field triage instruments, dispatcher and paramedic education, prenotification, and ambulance-based thrombolysis, are reviewed alongside the in-hospital Helsinki protocol, whose parallelization of imaging, clinical assessment, and drug preparation reduced median in-hospital delay to twenty minutes and was reproduced in Melbourne within four months. National registry data from the Target: Stroke initiative confirm that these gains scale across a hospital network with concurrent reductions in mortality and symptomatic hemorrhage. The review closes with the trade-off between speed and diagnostic certainty, the reassuring safety profile of thrombolysis in stroke mimics, and the way tenecteplase, imaging-based patient selection, and endovascular thrombectomy are reshaping what the metric measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":72523,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine","volume":"10 5","pages":"247-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13618259/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/fccm.92920503","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Acute ischemic stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and the benefit of intravenous thrombolysis decays steeply with time while its hemorrhagic risk does not. That asymmetry makes the door-to-needle interval, measured from emergency department arrival to administration of the thrombolytic bolus, one of the few determinants of stroke outcome that can be improved without new technology or additional resources. This review synthesizes the evidence underlying door-to-needle optimization. It begins with the quantified biology of delay, in which roughly 1.9 million neurons are lost for every minute of untreated large-vessel ischemia, and with the pooled randomized data showing that the number needed to treat for one additional good outcome rises from approximately five within ninety minutes to approximately fifteen at the outer edge of the 4.5-hour window. It then examines how the interval should be measured, arguing that the mean and the minimum door-to-needle time must both be reported because they describe different properties of the same system. Prehospital determinants of delay, including field triage instruments, dispatcher and paramedic education, prenotification, and ambulance-based thrombolysis, are reviewed alongside the in-hospital Helsinki protocol, whose parallelization of imaging, clinical assessment, and drug preparation reduced median in-hospital delay to twenty minutes and was reproduced in Melbourne within four months. National registry data from the Target: Stroke initiative confirm that these gains scale across a hospital network with concurrent reductions in mortality and symptomatic hemorrhage. The review closes with the trade-off between speed and diagnostic certainty, the reassuring safety profile of thrombolysis in stroke mimics, and the way tenecteplase, imaging-based patient selection, and endovascular thrombectomy are reshaping what the metric measures.

急性缺血性脑卒中从门到针的优化:急诊科快速干预措施综述。
急性缺血性中风是全球第二大死亡原因,静脉溶栓的益处随着时间的推移而急剧衰减,而其出血风险则不会。这种不对称使得从急诊科到达到给予溶栓丸的时间间隔成为可以在没有新技术或额外资源的情况下改善中风结果的少数决定因素之一。这篇综述综合了门到针优化的证据。它从延迟的量化生物学开始,在未经治疗的大血管缺血中,每分钟大约有190万个神经元丢失,并且随机数据显示,为了获得一个额外的好结果,需要治疗的数量从90分钟内的大约5个增加到4.5小时窗口外的大约15个。然后研究了间隔应该如何测量,认为平均值和最小从门到针的时间都必须报告,因为它们描述了同一系统的不同性质。院前延误的决定因素,包括现场分诊仪器、调派人员和护理人员教育、预先通知和救护车溶栓,与院内赫尔辛基协议一起进行了审查,该协议将成像、临床评估和药物准备并行化,将院内延误的中位数减少到20分钟,并在四个月内在墨尔本复制。来自“目标:卒中”倡议的国家登记数据证实,这些成果在整个医院网络中都有推广,同时死亡率和症状性出血也在减少。该综述总结了速度和诊断确定性之间的权衡,卒中模拟患者溶栓的安全性,以及tenecteplase、基于成像的患者选择和血管内取栓的方式正在重塑该指标的衡量标准。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书