Remote neurological evaluation reliably identifies patients eligible to endovascular therapy while non-eligible to intravenous thrombolysis

Abstract

Introduction/backgroundEarly identification of suspected stroke patients who might be eligible for a reperfusion strategy is a daily challenge in the management of patient referrals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a remote medical assessment in identifying patients eligible for endovascular therapy (EVT) while not eligible for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), compared with a decision based on bedside clinico-radiological data. MethodsPatients admitted to the emergency department for acute neurological symptoms lasting for less than 24h were prospectively included. Assessment of the clinical severity and medical history was performed simultaneously by two vascular neurologists (VNs), one remotely using a mobile telemedicine solution (NOMADEEC), the other at the bedside. RACE score was calculated from the NIHSS score. At the end of the evaluation, both VNs quoted their treatment convictions (IVT/EVT). Final therapeutic decision following brain and vascular imaging was recorded and compared to remote and bedside predictions. The performances of three different conditions were evaluated: complete medical evaluation (NIHSS+medical history), NIHSS score alone, and RACE score alone. Remote and bedside performances were also compared. Diagnostic accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) of each condition were estimated, along with their two-sided 95% binomial confidence intervals. ResultsOut of 215 enrolled patients, 186 had a complete evaluation, 91 (54.3%) were diagnosed with an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and 46 (24.7%) had an intracranial occlusion. Considering the three conditions evaluated remotely, RACE score-based decision provided the best sensitivity 54.6% [95% CI 23.4; 83.2]/specificity 80.6% [73.9; 86.2] combination. However, the complete medical evaluation had the best specificity (88.6% [82.9; 92.9] compared to RACE scores alone (P=0.038). Remote and bedside performances did not differ (κ=0.68 [0.59; 0.77]). Discussion/conclusionThis real-life study performed in the setting of emergency demonstrates that remote medical evaluations including recording of extensive medical information and NIHSS examination to address patient's eligibility to revascularization treatment is swiftly feasible and is as effective as bedside prediction to EVT and/or IVT. Remote standardized medical evaluation might improve the decision of patients’ primary orientation and avoid overcrowding of comprehensive stroke centres.