Evaluating Transport Strategies and Local Hospital Impact on Stroke Outcomes: A RACECAT Trial Substudy

M. Olivé-Gadea, M. Rodrigo-Gisbert, Á. García‐Tornel, S. Rudilosso, Alejandro Rodríguez, A. Doncel-Moriano, Mariano Facundo Werner, A. Renú, M. Muchada, M. Requena, Federica Rizzo, N. P. de la Ossa, S. Abilleira, Marc Ribó, Xabi Urra
{"title":"Evaluating Transport Strategies and Local Hospital Impact on Stroke Outcomes: A RACECAT Trial Substudy","authors":"M. Olivé-Gadea, M. Rodrigo-Gisbert, Á. García‐Tornel, S. Rudilosso, Alejandro Rodríguez, A. Doncel-Moriano, Mariano Facundo Werner, A. Renú, M. Muchada, M. Requena, Federica Rizzo, N. P. de la Ossa, S. Abilleira, Marc Ribó, Xabi Urra","doi":"10.1161/svin.123.001213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The optimal strategy for transferring patients to specialized acute stroke care remains controversial. This substudy of the Effect of Direct Transportation to Thrombectomy‐Capable Center vs Local Stroke Center on Neurological Outcomes in Patients with suspected Large‐Vessel Occlusion Stroke in Nonurban Areas (RACECAT) trial aims to investigate the impact of local hospital characteristics and performance on the optimal transport strategy and stroke outcomes.\n \n \n \n This was a secondary post hoc analysis of the RACECAT trial, evaluating factors potentially associated with functional outcomes among patients initially evaluated at a local stroke center (Local‐SC) versus a thrombectomy‐capable center. The primary outcome was the shift in the 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score in the target population of the RACECAT trial. Door‐to‐needle time, level of care of the Local‐SC (telestroke versus primary stroke center), the specialty of the physician involved with therapeutic decisions, and Local‐SC case volume were assessed for subgroup analyses.\n \n \n \n \n Of the 1367 patients included in the analysis, 903 had acute ischemic strokes (modified intention to treat). The 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score was associated with door‐to‐needle time in the entire modified intention‐to‐treat cohort (\n P\n  = 0.026) and in patients initially evaluated in a Local‐SC (\n P\n  = 0.063), and with local hospital level of care (telestroke versus primary stroke center;\n P\n  = 0.10). There was a trend favoring direct transport to thrombectomy‐capable center for patients whose assigned Local‐SC was a telestroke center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.47 [95% CI, 0.93–2.33] versus 0.94 [95% CI, 0.71–1.24];\n P\n interaction\n  = 0.08) or had door‐to‐needle time over the global median (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 0.97–2.40] versus 0.94 [95% CI, 0.71–1.25];\n P\n interaction\n  = 0.06). In patients with confirmed large‐vessel occlusion, the benefit of direct transport to thrombectomy‐capable centers when the Local‐SC was a telestroke center (\n P\n interaction\n  = 0.04) or had longer door‐to‐needle time (\n P\n interaction\n  = 0.07) was more evident.\n \n \n \n \n Direct transport to thrombectomy‐capable centers may be preferable in areas primarily covered by telestroke or Local‐SCs with poorer performance, especially in patients with large‐vessel occlusion. These findings can contribute to refining prehospital triage strategies and optimizing stroke systems of care.\n","PeriodicalId":21977,"journal":{"name":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","volume":"192 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.123.001213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The optimal strategy for transferring patients to specialized acute stroke care remains controversial. This substudy of the Effect of Direct Transportation to Thrombectomy‐Capable Center vs Local Stroke Center on Neurological Outcomes in Patients with suspected Large‐Vessel Occlusion Stroke in Nonurban Areas (RACECAT) trial aims to investigate the impact of local hospital characteristics and performance on the optimal transport strategy and stroke outcomes. This was a secondary post hoc analysis of the RACECAT trial, evaluating factors potentially associated with functional outcomes among patients initially evaluated at a local stroke center (Local‐SC) versus a thrombectomy‐capable center. The primary outcome was the shift in the 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score in the target population of the RACECAT trial. Door‐to‐needle time, level of care of the Local‐SC (telestroke versus primary stroke center), the specialty of the physician involved with therapeutic decisions, and Local‐SC case volume were assessed for subgroup analyses. Of the 1367 patients included in the analysis, 903 had acute ischemic strokes (modified intention to treat). The 90‐day modified Rankin Scale score was associated with door‐to‐needle time in the entire modified intention‐to‐treat cohort ( P  = 0.026) and in patients initially evaluated in a Local‐SC ( P  = 0.063), and with local hospital level of care (telestroke versus primary stroke center; P  = 0.10). There was a trend favoring direct transport to thrombectomy‐capable center for patients whose assigned Local‐SC was a telestroke center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.47 [95% CI, 0.93–2.33] versus 0.94 [95% CI, 0.71–1.24]; P interaction  = 0.08) or had door‐to‐needle time over the global median (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 0.97–2.40] versus 0.94 [95% CI, 0.71–1.25]; P interaction  = 0.06). In patients with confirmed large‐vessel occlusion, the benefit of direct transport to thrombectomy‐capable centers when the Local‐SC was a telestroke center ( P interaction  = 0.04) or had longer door‐to‐needle time ( P interaction  = 0.07) was more evident. Direct transport to thrombectomy‐capable centers may be preferable in areas primarily covered by telestroke or Local‐SCs with poorer performance, especially in patients with large‐vessel occlusion. These findings can contribute to refining prehospital triage strategies and optimizing stroke systems of care.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估转运策略和当地医院对卒中预后的影响:RACECAT 试验子研究
将患者转送至专业急性卒中治疗中心的最佳策略仍存在争议。直接转运至血栓切除中心与当地卒中中心对非城市地区疑似大血管闭塞性卒中患者神经功能预后的影响》(RACECAT)试验的这项子研究旨在调查当地医院的特点和绩效对最佳转运策略和卒中预后的影响。 这是对 RACECAT 试验进行的二次事后分析,评估了在当地卒中中心(Local-SC)与具有血栓切除能力的中心进行初步评估的患者中与功能预后可能相关的因素。主要结果是 RACECAT 试验目标人群 90 天改良 Rankin 量表评分的变化。在亚组分析中评估了从进针到出针的时间、本地中心的医疗水平(远程卒中与初级卒中中心)、参与治疗决策的医生专业以及本地中心的病例量。 在纳入分析的 1367 名患者中,903 人患有急性缺血性脑卒中(修正的意向治疗)。在整个改良意向治疗队列中,90 天改良 Rankin 量表评分与门到针时间相关(P = 0.026),与在当地卒中中心进行初步评估的患者相关(P = 0.063),与当地医院的医疗水平相关(远程卒中与初级卒中中心相比;P = 0.10)。有一种趋势表明,如果指定的地方医疗中心是远程卒中中心,则患者更倾向于直接转运至具有血栓切除能力的中心(调整后的几率比 [OR], 1.47 [95% CI, 0.93-2.33] 对 0.94[95%CI,0.71-1.24];P交互作用 = 0.08)或门到针时间超过全球中位数(调整后OR,1.52[95%CI,0.97-2.40]对0.94[95%CI,0.71-1.25];P交互作用 = 0.06)。在确诊大血管闭塞的患者中,如果当地服务中心是远程卒中中心(P交互作用=0.04)或门到针时间较长(P交互作用=0.07),则直接转运到有血栓切除能力的中心的益处更为明显。 在主要由远程卒中中心或性能较差的本地SC覆盖的地区,尤其是大血管闭塞患者,直接转运至具备血栓切除能力的中心可能更可取。这些发现有助于完善院前分流策略和优化卒中救治系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prognostication Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Modified Hunt and Hess Grading Scale Intra‐arterial Selective Bevacizumab Administration in the Middle Meningeal Artery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: An Early Experience in 12 Hemispheres Sex Disparities in Mortality After Endovascular Therapy in Large Core Infarcts Predicting Recanalization Failure With Conventional Devices During Endovascular Treatment Related to Vessel Occlusion Antiplatelet Therapy and Platelet Activity Testing for Neurointerventional Procedures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1