Comparison between different referral strategies for acute ischemic stroke patients in a hub-spoke emergency stroke network: a real-world experience in south-east Lazio.

Acute ischemic stroke Reperfusion strategies Stroke network

Journal

Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology
ISSN: 1590-3478
Titre abrégé: Neurol Sci
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 100959175

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 11 04 2023
accepted: 19 07 2023
medline: 29 7 2023
pubmed: 29 7 2023
entrez: 28 7 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To describe different referral strategies for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients in a Hub-Spoke emergency stroke network with their incidence, time metrics and related outcomes. Referral paradigms were defined as follows: primary transfer to the comprehensive stroke center (CSC) from a remote region, called mothership (MS); secondary transfer to the CSC from a primary stroke center where intravenous thrombolysis was available, called drip and ship (DS); secondary transfer to the CSC from a community hospital where no reperfusion therapy was available, called ship and drip (SD); primary transfer to the CSC from its catchment area, called direct CSC (dCSC). Among 517 anterior circulation AIS patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy between 2015 and 2020, 16.6% of them were SD, in addition to the well-known referral paradigms of MS (21.8%) and DS (18.1%). This rate grew to 30% when only patients whose place of onset was outside the CSC catchment area were considered. In the SD group, onset to CSC and onset to groin were significantly longer (178±80 min vs. 102±60 min, p<0.001, and 277±77 min vs. 211±61 min, p<0.001, respectively), and the risk of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was significantly higher (OR: 2.514; 95%CI: 1.18-5.35, p=0.017) compared to MS. In this hub-spoke stroke network, a high proportion of SD paradigm was found, which was associated with longer times to treatment and higher rates of any ICH. A closer cooperation between hospital stroke physicians, national health system staff, and paramedics is warranted to identify the most appropriate referral strategy for each patient.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37507617
doi: 10.1007/s10072-023-06966-8
pii: 10.1007/s10072-023-06966-8
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023. Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia.

Références

Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T et al (2019) Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: 2019 update to the 2018 guidelines for the early management of acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 50:e344–e418. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000211
doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000211 pubmed: 31662037
Saver JL, Goyal M, van der Lugt A et al (2016) Time to treatment with endovascular thrombectomy and outcomes from ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. JAMA 316:1279–1288. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.13647
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13647 pubmed: 27673305
Suzuki K, Matsumaru Y, Takeuchi M et al (2021) Effect of mechanical thrombectomy without vs with intravenous thrombolysis on functional outcome among patients with acute ischemic stroke. The SKIP Randomized Clin Trial JAMA 325:244–253. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.23522
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.23522
Yang P, Zhang Y, Zhang L et al (2020) Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in acute. NEJM 382:1981–1993. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001123
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001123 pubmed: 32374959
Zi W, Qiu Z, Li F et al (2021) Effect of endovascular treatment alone vs intravenous alteplase plus endovascular treatment on functional independence in patients with acute ischemic stroke. The DEVT Randomized Clin Trial JAMA 325:234–243. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.23523
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.23523
Lobotesis K, H Buck B (2021) Direct to thrombectomy. Stroke 52:2442–2444. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034423
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034423 pubmed: 34111950
Gerschenfeld G, Muresan IP, Blanc R et al (2017) Two paradigms for endovascular thrombectomy after intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. JAMA Neurol 74:549–556. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.5823
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.5823 pubmed: 28319240 pmcid: 5822198
Romoli M, Paciaroni M, Tsivgoulis G et al (2020) Mothership versus drip-and-ship model for mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis for clinical and radiological outcomes. J Stroke 22:317–323. https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2020.01767
doi: 10.5853/jos.2020.01767 pubmed: 33053947 pmcid: 7568974
Ismail M, Armoiry X, Tau N et al (2019) Mothership versus drip and ship for thrombectomy in patients who had an acute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 11:14–19. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014249
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014249 pubmed: 30297541
Holodinsky J, Williamson TS, Demchuk AM et al (2018) Modeling stroke patient transport for all patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion. JAMA Neurol 75:1477–1486. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2424
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2424 pubmed: 30193366 pmcid: 6583214
Kijpaisalratana N, Chutinet A, Akarathanawat W et al (2020) Outcomes of thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke: mothership, drip-and-ship, and ship-and-drip paradigms. BMC Neurol 20:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-1631-9
doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-1631-9 pubmed: 32013906 pmcid: 6998331
Pexman JH, Barber PA, Hill MD et al (2001) Use of the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) for assessing CT scans in patients with acute stroke. Am J Neuroradiol 22:1534–1542
pubmed: 11559501 pmcid: 7974585
Sallustio F, Motta C, Pizzuto S et al (2017) CT angiography-based collateral flow and time to reperfusion are strong predictors of outcome in endovascular treatment of patients with stroke. J Neurointerv Surg 9:940–943. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012628
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012628 pubmed: 27663559
Zaidat OO, Yoo AJ, Khatri P et al (2013) Recommendations on angiographic revascularization grading standards for acute ischemic stroke: a consensus statement. Stroke 44:2650–2663. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001972
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001972 pubmed: 23920012 pmcid: 4160883
Hacke W, Kaste M, Bluhmki E et al (2008) Thrombolysis with alteplase 3 to 4.5 hours after acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 359:1317–1329. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0804656
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804656 pubmed: 18815396
Pérez de la Ossa N, Millán M, Arenillas JF et al (2009) Influence of direct admission to Comprehensive Stroke Centers on the outcome of acute stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. J Neurol 256:1270–1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-5113-7
doi: 10.1007/s00415-009-5113-7 pubmed: 19353224
Ribo M, Molina CA, Pedragosa A et al (2008) Geographic differences in acute stroke care in Catalunya: impact of a regional interhospital network. Cerebrovasc Dis 26:284–288. https://doi.org/10.1159/000147457
doi: 10.1159/000147457 pubmed: 18648202
de la Ossa NP, Carrera D, Gorchs M et al (2014) Design and validation of a prehospital stroke scale to predict large arterial occlusion the rapid arterial occlusion evaluation scale. Stroke 45:87–91. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003071
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003071
Noorian AR, Sanossian N, Shkirkova K et al (2018) Los Angeles motor scale to identify large vessel occlusion: prehospital validation and comparison with other screens. Stroke. 49:565–572. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.019228
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.019228 pubmed: 29459391 pmcid: 5829024
Zhao H, Pesavento L, Coote S et al (2018) Ambulance clinical triage for acute stroke treatment: paramedic triage algorithm for large vessel occlusion. Stroke 49:945–951. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.019307
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.019307 pubmed: 29540611

Auteurs

F Sallustio (F)

Comprehensive Stroke Center, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. fsall75@gmail.com.

A P Mascolo (AP)

Comprehensive Stroke Center, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

F Marrama (F)

Comprehensive Stroke Center, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

G Lacidogna (G)

Comprehensive Stroke Center, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

F D'Agostino (F)

Comprehensive Stroke Center, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

A Rocco (A)

Comprehensive Stroke Center, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

R Gandini (R)

Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

D Morosetti (D)

Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

V Da Ros (V)

Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

M Nezzo (M)

Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

R Argirò (R)

Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

M Plocco (M)

Neurovascular Therapy Unit, F. Spaziani Hospital, Rome, Frosinone, Italy.

F Alemseged (F)

Department of Medicine and Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

M Diomedi (M)

Comprehensive Stroke Center, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

Classifications MeSH