Is the weekend effect true in acute stroke patients at tertiary stroke center?
Circadian rhythm
Functional outcome
Ischaemic stroke
Mortality
Thrombolysis
Weekend effect
Journal
Journal of the neurological sciences
ISSN: 1878-5883
Titre abrégé: J Neurol Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0375403
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 08 2021
15 08 2021
Historique:
received:
08
04
2021
revised:
24
05
2021
accepted:
22
06
2021
pubmed:
3
7
2021
medline:
13
8
2021
entrez:
2
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is contradicting evidence on the outcome of emergency patients treated during weekends versus weekdays. We studied if outcome of ischemic stroke patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) differs according to the treatment time. Our retrospective study included consecutive patients receiving IVT within 4.5 h of stroke onset between June 1995 and December 2018 at the Helsinki University Hospital. The patients were compared based on the treatment initiation either during weekdays (Monday to Friday) or weekend (Saturday and Sunday). The primary outcome was 3-month mortality and secondary outcomes comprised 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Additional analyses studied the effect of IVT treatment according to non-office hours, time of day, and season. Of the 3980 IVT-treated patients, 28.0% received treatment during weekends. Mortality was similar after weekend (10.0%) and weekday (10.6%) admissions in the multivariable regression analysis (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.59-1.03). Neither 3-month mRS (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86-1.12), nor the occurrence of sICH (4.2% vs 4.6%; OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.60-1.26) differed between the groups. No outcome difference was observed between the office vs non-office hours or by the time of day. However, odds for worse outcome were higher during autumn (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.04-1.35) and winter (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.30). We did not discover any weekend effect for IVT-treated stroke patients. This confirms that with standardized procedures, an equal quality of care can be provided to patients requiring urgent treatment irrespective of time.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is contradicting evidence on the outcome of emergency patients treated during weekends versus weekdays. We studied if outcome of ischemic stroke patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) differs according to the treatment time.
METHODS
Our retrospective study included consecutive patients receiving IVT within 4.5 h of stroke onset between June 1995 and December 2018 at the Helsinki University Hospital. The patients were compared based on the treatment initiation either during weekdays (Monday to Friday) or weekend (Saturday and Sunday). The primary outcome was 3-month mortality and secondary outcomes comprised 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Additional analyses studied the effect of IVT treatment according to non-office hours, time of day, and season.
RESULTS
Of the 3980 IVT-treated patients, 28.0% received treatment during weekends. Mortality was similar after weekend (10.0%) and weekday (10.6%) admissions in the multivariable regression analysis (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.59-1.03). Neither 3-month mRS (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86-1.12), nor the occurrence of sICH (4.2% vs 4.6%; OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.60-1.26) differed between the groups. No outcome difference was observed between the office vs non-office hours or by the time of day. However, odds for worse outcome were higher during autumn (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.04-1.35) and winter (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.30).
CONCLUSION
We did not discover any weekend effect for IVT-treated stroke patients. This confirms that with standardized procedures, an equal quality of care can be provided to patients requiring urgent treatment irrespective of time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34214920
pii: S0022-510X(21)00251-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.117557
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fibrinolytic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
117557Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.