Abstract

Background: Interhospital transfer for endovascular treatment (EVT) within neurovascular networks might result in transfer of patients who will not undergo EVT (futile transfer). Limited evidence exists on factors associated with the primary patient selection for interhospital transfer from primary stroke centers (PSCs) to comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs), or EVT-workflow parameters that may render a transfer futile.Methods: A prospective, registry-based study was performed between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at a hub-and-spoke neurovascular network in southwest Germany, comprising 12 referring PSCs and one designated CSC providing round-the-clock EVT at the University Hospital Tübingen. Patients with acute ischemic stroke due to suspected large artery occlusion (LAO) were included upon emergency interhospital transfer inquiry (ITI).Results: ITI was made for 154 patients, 91 (59%) of whom were transferred to the CSC. Non-transferred patients (41%) had significantly higher premorbid modified Rankin scale scores (mRS) compared to transferred patients [median (IQR): 2 (1–3) vs. 0 (0–1), p < 0.001]. Interhospital transfer was denied due to: distal vessel occlusion (44.4%), or non-verifiable LAO (33.3%) in computed tomography angiography (CTA) upon teleconsultation by CSC neuroradiologists; limited Stroke-Unit or ventilation capacity (9.5%), or limited neuroradiological capacity at the CSC (12.7%). The CT-to-ITI interval was significantly longer in patients denied interhospital transfer [median (IQR): 43 (29–56) min] compared to transferred patients [29 (15–55), p = 0.029]. No further differences in EVT-workflow, and no differences in the 3-month mRS outcomes were noted between non-transferred and transferred patients [median (IQR): 2 (0–5) vs. 3 (1–4), p = 0.189]. After transfer to the CSC, 44 (48%) patients underwent EVT. The Alberta stroke program early CT score [ORadj (95% CI): 1.786 (1.573–2.028), p < 0.001] and the CT-to-ITI interval [0.994 (0.991–0.998), p = 0.001] were significant predictors of the likelihood of EVT performance.Conclusion: Our findings show that hub-and-spoke neurovascular network infrastructures efficiently enable access to EVT to patients with AIS due to LAO, who are primarily admitted to PSCs without on-site EVT availability. As in real-world settings optimal allocation of EVT resources is warranted, teleconsultation by experienced endovascular interventionists and prompt interhospital-transfer-inquiries are crucial to reduce the futile transfer rates and optimize patient selection for EVT within neurovascular networks.

Highlights

  • Endovascular recanalization therapy (EVT) has become standard of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large artery occlusion (LAO) [1]

  • For patients transferred to the study comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs), computed tomography (CT) imaging was performed on admission (o/a), including non-contrast CT (NCT), CT angiography (CTA), and CT perfusion (CTP) with cerebral blood flow (CBF) and cerebral blood volume (CBV) perfusion maps

  • Emergency inter-hospital transfer inquiry (ITI) for EVT was made for a total of 154 patients, who presented with AIS due to suspected LAO in 12 referring primary stroke centers (PSCs)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Endovascular recanalization therapy (EVT) has become standard of care in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large artery occlusion (LAO) [1]. The operational workflow in most supraregional neurovascular networks [4, 5] entails acute AIS management, including administration of intravenous thrombolysis, at primary stroke centers (PSCs) followed by emergency interhospital patient transfer to comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) when EVT is required. As current EVT registries, including the German Stroke Registry Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET) [9, 10], only capture data of transferred patients with intention-to-treat with EVT at the CSCs, realworld evidence on patient selection for interhospital transfer are lacking. Limited evidence exists on factors associated with the primary patient selection for interhospital transfer from primary stroke centers (PSCs) to comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs), or EVT-workflow parameters that may render a transfer futile

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.