Dataset Information

Interhospital transfer vs. direct presentation of patients with a large vessel occlusion not eligible for IV thrombolysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Direct presentation of patients with acute ischemic stroke to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) reduces time to endovascular treatment (EVT), but may increase time to treatment for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). This dilemma, however, is not applicable to patients who have a contraindication for IVT. We examined the effect of direct presentation to a CSC on outcomes after EVT in patients not eligible for IVT.

Methods

We used data from the MR CLEAN Registry (2014-2017). We included patients who were not treated with IVT and compared patients directly presented to a CSC to patients transferred from a primary stroke center. Outcomes included treatment times and 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores (mRS) adjusted for potential confounders.

Results

Of the 3637 patients, 680 (19%) did not receive IVT and were included in the analyses. Of these, 389 (57%) were directly presented to a CSC. The most common contraindications for IVT were anticoagulation use (49%) and presentation > 4.5 h after onset (26%). Directly presented patients had lower baseline NIHSS scores (median 16 vs. 17, p = 0.015), higher onset-to-first-door times (median 105 vs. 66 min, p < 0.001), lower first-door-to-groin times (median 93 vs. 150 min; adjusted β = - 51.6, 95% CI: - 64.0 to - 39.2) and lower onset-to-groin times (median 220 vs. 230 min; adjusted β = - 44.0, 95% CI: - 65.5 to - 22.4). The 90-day mRS score did not differ between groups (adjusted OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.73-2.08).

Conclusions

In patients who were not eligible for IVT, treatment times for EVT were better for patients directly presented to a CSC, but without a statistically significant effect on clinical outcome.

SUBMITTER: van Meenen LCC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7320925 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interhospital transfer vs. direct presentation of patients with a large vessel occlusion not eligible for IV thrombolysis.

van Meenen Laura C C LCC Groot Adrien E AE Venema Esmee E Emmer Bart J BJ Smeekes Martin D MD Kommer Geert Jan GJ Majoie Charles B L M CBLM Roos Yvo B W E M YBWEM Schonewille Wouter J WJ Roozenbeek Bob B Coutinho Jonathan M JM

Journal of neurology 20200407 7

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Direct presentation of patients with acute ischemic stroke to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) reduces time to endovascular treatment (EVT), but may increase time to treatment for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). This dilemma, however, is not applicable to patients who have a contraindication for IVT. We examined the effect of direct presentation to a CSC on outcomes after EVT in patients not eligible for IVT.<h4>Methods</h4>We used data from the MR CLEAN Registr ...[more]

PMID: 32266543

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEfficacy of thrombectomy treatment in acute ischemic stroke large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) patients is time dependent. Direct admission to thrombectomy centers (vs. interhospital transfer) may reduce time to treatment and improve outcomes. In this subset analysis of the COMPLETE registry, we compared outcomes between direct to thrombectomy center (Direct) vs. transfer from another hospital to thrombectomy center (Transfer) in AIS-LVO patients treated with aspiration thrombectomy.MethodsCOMPLETE was a prospective, international registry that enrolled patients from July 2018 to October 2019, with a 90-day follow-up period that was completed in January 2020. Imaging findings and safety events were adjudicated by core lab and independent medical reviewers, respectively. Pre-defined primary endpoints included post-procedure angiographic revascularization (mTICI ≥2b), 90-day functional outcome (mRS 0-2), and 90-day all-cause mortality. Planned collections of procedural time metrics and outcomes were used in the present post-hoc analysis to compare outcomes between transfer and direct patient cohorts.ResultsOf 650 patients enrolled, 343 were transfer [52.8% female; mean (SD) age, 68.2 (13.9) years], and 307 were direct [55.4% female; 68.5 (14.5) years] admit. Median onset-to-puncture time took longer in the transfer vs. direct cohort (5.65 vs. 3.18 h: 2.33 h difference, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in successful revascularization rate, mTICI ≥2b (88.3 and 87.3%), sICH at 24 h (3.8 and 3.9%), median length of hospital stay (7 and 6 days), and 90-day mortality (16.9 and 14.0%) between transfer vs. direct patients, respectively. However, achieving 90-day functional independence was less likely in transfer compared with direct patients (mRS 0-2 was 50.3 vs. 61.7%, p = 0.0056).ConclusionsIn the COMPLETE registry, direct to thrombectomy center was associated with significantly shorter onset-to-puncture times, and higher rates of good clinical outcome across different geographies. Additional research should focus on AIS-LVO detection to facilitate direct routing of patients to appropriate treatment centers.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov (Unique identifier: NCT03464565).

Project description:Background: Whether bridging treatment combining intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is superior to direct EVT alone for emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation is unknown. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to investigate and assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment vs. direct EVT in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched to assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment and direct EVT in LVO. Functional independence, mortality, asymptomatic and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH and sICH, respectively), and successful recanalization were evaluated. The risk ratio and the 95% CI were analyzed. Results: Among the eight studies included, there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (OR = 1.008, 95% CI = 0.845-1.204, P = 0.926), mortality (OR = 1.060, 95% CI = 0.840-1.336, P = 0.624), recanalization rate (OR = 1.015, 95% CI = 0.793-1.300, P = 0.905), and the incidence of sICH (OR = 1.320, 95% CI = 0.931-1.870, P = 0.119) between bridging therapy and direct EVT. After adjusting for confounding factors, bridging therapy showed a lower recanalization rate (effect size or ES = -0.377, 95% CI = -0.684 to -0.070, P = 0.016), but there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (ES = 0.057, 95% CI = -0.177 to 0.291, P = 0.634), mortality (ES = 0.693, 95% CI = -0.133 to 1.519, P = 0.100), and incidence of sICH (ES = -0.051, 95% CI = -0.687 to 0.585, P = 0.875) compared with direct EVT. Meanwhile, in the subgroup analysis of RCT, no significant difference was found in the long-term functional independence (OR = 0.927, 95% CI = 0.727-1.182, P = 0.539), recanalization rate (OR = 1.331, 95% CI = 0.948-1.867, P = 0.099), mortality (OR = 1.072, 95% CI = 0.776-1.481, P = 0.673), and sICH incidence (OR = 1.383, 95% CI = 0.806-2.374, P = 0.977) between patients receiving bridging therapy and those receiving direct DVT. Conclusion: For stroke patients with acute anterior circulation occlusion and who are eligible for intravenous thrombolysis, there is no significant difference in the clinical effect between direct EVT and bridging therapy, which needs to be verified by more randomized controlled trials.

Project description:ImportanceAdvanced imaging for patient selection in mechanical thrombectomy is not widely available.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of patients selected for mechanical thrombectomy by noncontrast computed tomography (CT) vs those selected by computed tomography perfusion (CTP) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the extended time window.Design, setting, and participantsThis multinational cohort study included consecutive patients with proximal anterior circulation occlusion stroke presenting within 6 to 24 hours of time last seen well from January 2014 to December 2020. This study was conducted at 15 sites across 5 countries in Europe and North America. The duration of follow-up was 90 days from stroke onset.ExposuresComputed tomography with Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, CTP, or MRI.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the distribution of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at 90 days (ordinal shift). Secondary outcomes included the rates of 90-day functional independence (mRS scores of 0-2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and 90-day mortality.ResultsOf 2304 patients screened for eligibility, 1604 patients were included, with a median (IQR) age of 70 (59-80) years; 848 (52.9%) were women. A total of 534 patients were selected to undergo mechanical thrombectomy by CT, 752 by CTP, and 318 by MRI. After adjustment of confounders, there was no difference in 90-day ordinal mRS shift between patients selected by CT vs CTP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.17]; P = .64) or CT vs MRI (aOR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.8-1.13]; P = .55). The rates of 90-day functional independence (mRS scores 0-2 vs 3-6) were similar between patients selected by CT vs CTP (aOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.7-1.16]; P = .42) but lower in patients selected by MRI than CT (aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64-0.98]; P = .03). Successful reperfusion was more common in the CT and CTP groups compared with the MRI group (474 [88.9%] and 670 [89.5%] vs 250 [78.9%]; P < .001). No significant differences in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (CT, 42 [8.1%]; CTP, 43 [5.8%]; MRI, 15 [4.7%]; P = .11) or 90-day mortality (CT, 125 [23.4%]; CTP, 159 [21.1%]; MRI, 62 [19.5%]; P = .38) were observed.Conclusions and relevanceIn patients undergoing proximal anterior circulation mechanical thrombectomy in the extended time window, there were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes of patients selected with noncontrast CT compared with those selected with CTP or MRI. These findings have the potential to widen the indication for treating patients in the extended window using a simpler and more widespread noncontrast CT-only paradigm.

Project description:Background and purposeAutomated perfusion imaging can detect stroke patients with unknown time of symptom onset who are eligible for thrombolysis. However, the availability of this technique is limited. We, therefore, established the novel concept of computed tomography (CT) hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch, i.e., an ischemic core lesion visible on cerebral perfusion CT without visible hypodensity in the corresponding native cerebral CT. We compared both methods regarding their accuracy in identifying patients suitable for thrombolysis.MethodsIn a retrospective analysis of the MissPerfeCT observational cohort study, patients were classified as suitable or not for thrombolysis based on established time window and imaging criteria. We calculated predictive values for hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch and automated perfusion imaging to compare accuracy in the identification of patients suitable for thrombolysis.ResultsOf 247 patients, 219 (88.7%) were eligible for thrombolysis and 28 (11.3%) were not eligible for thrombolysis. Of 197 patients who were within 4.5 h of symptom onset, 190 (96.4%) were identified by hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch and 88 (44.7%) by automated perfusion mismatch (p < 0.001). Of 22 patients who were beyond 4.5 h of symptom onset but were eligible for thrombolysis, 5 patients (22.7%) were identified by hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch. Predictive values for the hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch vs. automated perfusion mismatch were as follows: sensitivity, 89.0% vs. 50.2%; specificity, 71.4% vs. 100.0%; positive predictive value, 96.1% vs. 100.0%; and negative predictive value, 45.5% vs. 20.4%.ConclusionThe novel method of hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch can identify patients suitable for thrombolysis with higher sensitivity and lower specificity than established techniques. Using this simple method might therefore increase the proportion of patients treated with thrombolysis without the use of special automated software.The MissPerfeCT study is a retrospective observational multicenter cohort study and is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04277728).

Dataset Information

Interhospital transfer vs. direct presentation of patients with a large vessel occlusion not eligible for IV thrombolysis.

Background and purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Interhospital transfer vs. direct presentation of patients with a large vessel occlusion not eligible for IV thrombolysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets