Comparison Between In-Hospital and Community-Onset Stroke Treated With Endovascular Thrombectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

IF 2.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) Pub Date : 2023-04-25 eCollection Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1161/SVIN.122.000816
Permesh Singh Dhillon, Emma Soo, Waleed Butt, Thanh N Nguyen, Emma Barrett, Anna Podlasek, Norman McConachie, Robert Lenthall, Sujit Nair, Luqman Malik, Chesvin Cheema, Pervinder Bhogal, Hegoda Levansri Dilrukshan Makalanda, Martin A James, Robert A Dineen, Timothy J England
{"title":"Comparison Between In-Hospital and Community-Onset Stroke Treated With Endovascular Thrombectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.","authors":"Permesh Singh Dhillon, Emma Soo, Waleed Butt, Thanh N Nguyen, Emma Barrett, Anna Podlasek, Norman McConachie, Robert Lenthall, Sujit Nair, Luqman Malik, Chesvin Cheema, Pervinder Bhogal, Hegoda Levansri Dilrukshan Makalanda, Martin A James, Robert A Dineen, Timothy J England","doi":"10.1161/SVIN.122.000816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with acute ischemic stroke onset during hospital admission often have concurrent illnesses, increased underlying comorbidities and are often associated with a delayed recognition of stroke onset, compared with patients with stroke onset in the community (community-onset stroke [COS]). Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for large-vessel occlusion in acute ischemic stroke has been proven to be effective, though the safety and feasibility of EVT among patients with in-hospital stroke (IHS) onset remains undetermined. We aim to compare the workflow and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing EVT following IHS onset and COS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from a national stroke registry, we used propensity score-matched individual-level data of patients who underwent EVT, following IHS and COS, between October 2015 and March 2020. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the procedural, functional, and safety outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 4353 patients (COS, 4104 [249 after propensity score matching]; IHS, 249 [249 after propensity score matching]). Compared with COS, patients with IHS had similar modified Rankin Scale on discharge (odds ratio [OR], 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72-1.34]; <i>P</i>=0.96) and at 6 months (OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.71-2.24]; <i>P</i>=0.48). No significant difference in achieving good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤ 2 at discharge; 31.3% [IHS] versus 29.3% [COS]; OR,=1.10 [95% CI 0.74-1.60]; <i>P</i>=0.61), successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b-3), <i>P</i>=0.82; or safety outcomes of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (<i>P</i>=0.64) and in-hospital mortality (<i>P</i>=0.26) were demonstrated. Shorter time interval from stroke onset to imaging in the IHS group (IHS, 80±88 versus COS, 216±292 minutes) was observed. The imaging-to-arterial-puncture time was not significantly different between the groups (IHS, 160±140 versus COS, 162±184 minutes; <i>P</i>=0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EVT in patients with IHS is safe and feasible, with comparable functional and safety outcomes to patients with COS, in this national stroke registry. Continued efforts are required to improve the inpatient stroke workflow in recognizing stroke symptoms and initiating reperfusion treatment for eligible patients with IHS.</p>","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":"e000816"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12778670/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/SVIN.122.000816","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with acute ischemic stroke onset during hospital admission often have concurrent illnesses, increased underlying comorbidities and are often associated with a delayed recognition of stroke onset, compared with patients with stroke onset in the community (community-onset stroke [COS]). Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for large-vessel occlusion in acute ischemic stroke has been proven to be effective, though the safety and feasibility of EVT among patients with in-hospital stroke (IHS) onset remains undetermined. We aim to compare the workflow and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing EVT following IHS onset and COS.

Methods: Using data from a national stroke registry, we used propensity score-matched individual-level data of patients who underwent EVT, following IHS and COS, between October 2015 and March 2020. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the procedural, functional, and safety outcomes.

Results: We included 4353 patients (COS, 4104 [249 after propensity score matching]; IHS, 249 [249 after propensity score matching]). Compared with COS, patients with IHS had similar modified Rankin Scale on discharge (odds ratio [OR], 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72-1.34]; P=0.96) and at 6 months (OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.71-2.24]; P=0.48). No significant difference in achieving good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤ 2 at discharge; 31.3% [IHS] versus 29.3% [COS]; OR,=1.10 [95% CI 0.74-1.60]; P=0.61), successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b-3), P=0.82; or safety outcomes of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (P=0.64) and in-hospital mortality (P=0.26) were demonstrated. Shorter time interval from stroke onset to imaging in the IHS group (IHS, 80±88 versus COS, 216±292 minutes) was observed. The imaging-to-arterial-puncture time was not significantly different between the groups (IHS, 160±140 versus COS, 162±184 minutes; P=0.85).

Conclusions: EVT in patients with IHS is safe and feasible, with comparable functional and safety outcomes to patients with COS, in this national stroke registry. Continued efforts are required to improve the inpatient stroke workflow in recognizing stroke symptoms and initiating reperfusion treatment for eligible patients with IHS.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
一项倾向评分匹配的队列研究:医院内和社区内血管内血栓切除术治疗卒中的比较
与社区脑卒中患者相比,住院期间急性缺血性脑卒中患者通常并发疾病,潜在合并症增加,并且通常与对脑卒中发作的延迟识别有关(社区脑卒中[COS])。血管内血栓切除术(EVT)治疗急性缺血性卒中大血管闭塞已被证明是有效的,尽管EVT在院内卒中(IHS)患者中的安全性和可行性尚不确定。我们的目的是比较IHS发作和COS后接受EVT的患者的工作流程和临床结果。使用国家中风登记处的数据,我们使用了2015年10月至2020年3月期间接受EVT、IHS和COS的患者的倾向得分匹配的个人水平数据。进行单变量分析以评估手术、功能和安全性结果。我们纳入了4353名患者(COS,4104[249倾向评分匹配后];IHS,249倾向评分匹配前])。与COS相比,IHS患者出院时的改良Rankin量表(比值比[OR],0.98[95%CI,0.72-1.34];P=0.96)和6个月时的改良兰金量表(OR,1.25[95%CI;0.71-2.24];P=0.48)相似。在获得良好的功能结果方面没有显著差异(出院时改良Rankin量表≤2;31.3%[IHS]与29.3%[COS];OR,=1.10[95%CI 0.74-1.60];P=0.61),再灌注成功(改良的脑梗死溶栓评分为2b–3),P=0.82;或症状性颅内出血(P=0.64)和住院死亡率(P=0.26)的安全性结果。IHS组从中风发作到成像的时间间隔更短(IHS为80±88分钟,COS为216±292分钟)。两组之间的成像到动脉穿刺时间没有显著差异(IHS,160±140与COS,162±184分钟;P=0.85)。在国家中风登记中,IHS患者的EVT是安全可行的,其功能和安全性结果与COS患者相当。需要继续努力改善住院中风工作流程,以识别中风症状并启动符合条件的IHS患者的再灌注治疗。
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
Changes in Oxygen Metabolism Biomarkers of Ischemic Tissue Treated With Electrical Stimulation. Impact of Antivascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Chronic Subdural Hematoma Patients: A Propensity-Matched Multi-Institutional Cohort Study. Neurointerventional Practice Change Following Distal Medium Vessel Occlusion Randomized Controlled Trials: A Survey. Blood Biomarkers for Large Vessel Occlusions: A Systematic Review. Estimation of Acute Infarct Core and Hypoperfused Region from Baseline Noncontrast Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography Angiography Scans of Patients with Ischemic Stroke.
×
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:604180095
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