Emergency management of stroke in the era of mechanical thrombectomy

Emergency management of stroke has been directed at the delivery of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in a timely fashion. Because of the many limitations attached to the delivery of tPA and the perceived benefits accrued to tPA, its use has been limited. Mechanical thrombectomy, a far superior therapy for the largest and most disabling strokes, large vessel occlusions (LVOs), has changed the way acute strokes are managed. Aside from the rush to deliver tPA, there is now a need to identify LVO and refer those patients with LVO to physicians and facilities capable of delivering urgent thrombectomy. Other parts of emergency department management of stroke are directed at identifying and mitigating risk factors for future strokes and at preventing further damage from occurring. We review here the most recent literature supporting these advances in stroke care and present a framework for understanding the role that emergency physicians play in acute stroke care

A Shorter Door-In-Door-Out Time Is Associated with Improved Outcome in Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke.

Introduction: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) significantly improves outcomes in large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). When a patient with a LVOS arrives at a hospital that does not perform EVT, emergent transfer to an endovascular stroke center (ESC) is required. Our objective was to determine the association between door-in-door-out time (DIDO) and 90-day outcomes in patients undergoing EVT. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Optimizing Prehospital Stroke Systems of Care-Reacting to Changing Paradigms (OPUS-REACH) registry of 2,400 LVOS patients treated at nine ESCs in the United States. We examined the association between DIDO times and 90-day outcomes as measured by the modified Rankin scale. Results: A total of 435 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean DIDO time for patients with good outcomes was 17 minute shorter than patients with poor outcomes (122 minutes [min] vs 139 min, P = 0.04). Absolute DIDO cutoff times of ≤60 min, ≤90 min, or ≤120 min were not associated with improved functional outcomes (46.4 vs 32.3%, P = 0.12; 38.6 vs 30.6%, P = 0.10; and 36.4 vs 28.9%, P = 0.10, respectively). This held true for patients with hyperacute strokes of less than four-hour onset. Lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (11.9 vs 18.2, P = \u3c.001) and younger age (62.5 vs 74.9 years (P \u3c .001) were associated with improved outcomes. On multiple regression analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.02) and baseline NIHSS score (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42-1.98) were associated with improved outcomes while DIDO time was not associated with better outcome (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.30). Conclusion: Although the DIDO time was shorter for patients with a good outcome, this was non-significant in multiple regression analysis. Receipt of intravenous thrombolysis and time to EVT were not associated with better outcomes, while male gender, lower age, arrival by private vehicle, and lower NIHSS score portended better outcomes. No absolute DIDO-time cutoff or modifiable factor was associated with improved outcomes for LVOS. This study underscores the need to streamline DIDO times but not to set an artificial DIDO time benchmark to meet

Delay in hospital presentation is the main reason large vessel occlusion stroke patients do not receive intravenous thrombolysi.

OBJECTIVES: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular therapy (EVT) are the mainstays of treatment for large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). Prior studies have examined why patients have not received IVT, the most cited reasons being last-known-well (LKW) to hospital arrival of \u3e4.5 hours and minor/resolving stroke symptoms. Given that LVOS patients typically present moderate-to-severe neurologic deficits, these patients should be easier to identify and treat than patients with minor strokes. This investigation explores why IVT was not administered to a cohort of LVOS patients who underwent EVT. METHODS: This is an analysis of the Optimizing the Use of Prehospital Stroke Systems of Care (OPUS-REACH) registry, which contains patients from 9 endovascular centers who underwent EVT between 2015 and 2020. The exposure of interest was the receipt of intravenous thrombolysis. Descriptive summary statistics are presented as means and SDs for continuous variables and as frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. Two-sample RESULTS: Two thousand forty-three patients were included and 60% did not receive IVT. The most common reason for withholding IVT was LKW to arrival of \u3e4.5 (57.2%). The second most common contraindication was oral anticoagulation (15.5%). On multivariable analysis, 2 factors were associated with not receiving IVT: increasing age (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.93) and increasing time from LKW-to hospital arrival (OR 0.45 95% CI 0.46-0.49). CONCLUSION: Like prior studies, the most frequent reason for exclusion from IVT was a LKW to hospital presentation of \u3e4.5 hours; the second reason was anticoagulation. Efforts must be made to increase awareness of the time-sensitive nature of IVT and evaluate the safety of IVT in patients on oral anticoagulants

A Shorter Door-In-Door-Out Time Is Associated with Improved Outcome in Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke

Introduction: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) significantly improves outcomes in large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). When a patient with a LVOS arrives at a hospital that does not perform EVT, emergent transfer to an endovascular stroke center (ESC) is required. Our objective was to determine the association between door-in-door-out time (DIDO) and 90-day outcomes in patients undergoing EVT.Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Optimizing Prehospital Stroke Systems of Care-Reacting to Changing Paradigms (OPUS-REACH) registry of 2,400 LVOS patients treated at nine ESCs in the United States. We examined the association between DIDO times and 90-day outcomes as measured by the modified Rankin scale.Results: A total of 435 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean DIDO time for patients with good outcomes was 17 minute shorter than patients with poor outcomes (122 minutes [min] vs 139 min, P = 0.04). Absolute DIDO cutoff times of ≤60 min, ≤90 min, or ≤120 min were not associated with improved functional outcomes (46.4 vs 32.3%, P = 0.12; 38.6 vs 30.6%, P = 0.10; and 36.4 vs 28.9%, P = 0.10, respectively). This held true for patients with hyperacute strokes of less than four-hour onset. Lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (11.9 vs 18.2, P =<.001) and younger age (62.5 vs 74.9 years (P < .001) were associated with improved outcomes. On multiple regression analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45–2.02) and baseline NIHSS score (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42–1.98) were associated with improved outcomes while DIDO time was not associated with better outcome (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99–1.30).Conclusion: Although the DIDO time was shorter for patients with a good outcome, this was non-significant in multiple regression analysis. Receipt of intravenous thrombolysis and time to EVT were not associated with better outcomes, while male gender, lower age, arrival by private vehicle, and lower NIHSS score portended better outcomes. No absolute DIDO-time cutoff or modifiable factor was associated with improved outcomes for LVOS. This study underscores the need to streamline DIDO times but not to set an artificial DIDO time benchmark to meet

Delay in hospital presentation is the main reason large vessel occlusion stroke patients do not receive intravenous thrombolysi.

OBJECTIVES: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular therapy (EVT) are the mainstays of treatment for large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). Prior studies have examined why patients have not received IVT, the most cited reasons being last-known-well (LKW) to hospital arrival of \u3e4.5 hours and minor/resolving stroke symptoms. Given that LVOS patients typically present moderate-to-severe neurologic deficits, these patients should be easier to identify and treat than patients with minor strokes. This investigation explores why IVT was not administered to a cohort of LVOS patients who underwent EVT. METHODS: This is an analysis of the Optimizing the Use of Prehospital Stroke Systems of Care (OPUS-REACH) registry, which contains patients from 9 endovascular centers who underwent EVT between 2015 and 2020. The exposure of interest was the receipt of intravenous thrombolysis. Descriptive summary statistics are presented as means and SDs for continuous variables and as frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. Two-sample RESULTS: Two thousand forty-three patients were included and 60% did not receive IVT. The most common reason for withholding IVT was LKW to arrival of \u3e4.5 (57.2%). The second most common contraindication was oral anticoagulation (15.5%). On multivariable analysis, 2 factors were associated with not receiving IVT: increasing age (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.93) and increasing time from LKW-to hospital arrival (OR 0.45 95% CI 0.46-0.49). CONCLUSION: Like prior studies, the most frequent reason for exclusion from IVT was a LKW to hospital presentation of \u3e4.5 hours; the second reason was anticoagulation. Efforts must be made to increase awareness of the time-sensitive nature of IVT and evaluate the safety of IVT in patients on oral anticoagulants

Assessing Disparities in Access to Advanced Stroke Care in 4 Northeastern States Using the Social Vulnerability Index

Background Access to endovascular stroke centers (ESCs) is crucial for patients to receive optimal care for large‐vessel occlusion strokes. Disparities in stroke care are well documented, including differences in patients who receive intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular therapy. Here, we describe racial, ethnic, sex, and social disparities in access to ESCs using the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a composite measure of a community\u27s health. Methods This is a population‐based study of 4 Northeastern states. We geocoded all ESCs in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware and calculated the distance from the centroid of each census tract to the nearest ESC. We then used the US Centers for Disease Control\u27s Social Vulnerability Index and its 4 subcomponents to calculate the health of that census tract. Results are presented as mean drive times by quartile of SVI (quartile 1=least vulnerable, quartile 4=most vulnerable) and the mean SVI dichotomized to census tracts located less than and greater than 60 minutes to the nearest ESC. Results A total of 42 000 000 people and 10 000 census tracts were included in our data. There were no significant differences in the mean SVI for census with drive times of \u3c60 minutes versus \u3e60 minutes to the nearest ESC. However, there were significant differences in 2 subcomponents of the SVI: Minority Status & Language and Household Composition & Disability. In the Minority Status subcomponent of the SVI, those in the most vulnerable census tracts (quartile 4) were located closest to ESCs compared with the least vulnerable census tracts (quartile 1), while for the Household Composition subcomponent, the most vulnerable census tracts were located farthest from the ESCs. Conclusion The SVI is a valuable tool for assessing disparities in access to advanced stroke care and predicting where additional ESCs should be added to benefit the population as a whole

A Shorter Door-In-Door-Out Time Is Associated with Improved Outcome in Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke.

Introduction: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) significantly improves outcomes in large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS). When a patient with a LVOS arrives at a hospital that does not perform EVT, emergent transfer to an endovascular stroke center (ESC) is required. Our objective was to determine the association between door-in-door-out time (DIDO) and 90-day outcomes in patients undergoing EVT. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Optimizing Prehospital Stroke Systems of Care-Reacting to Changing Paradigms (OPUS-REACH) registry of 2,400 LVOS patients treated at nine ESCs in the United States. We examined the association between DIDO times and 90-day outcomes as measured by the modified Rankin scale. Results: A total of 435 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean DIDO time for patients with good outcomes was 17 minute shorter than patients with poor outcomes (122 minutes [min] vs 139 min, P = 0.04). Absolute DIDO cutoff times of ≤60 min, ≤90 min, or ≤120 min were not associated with improved functional outcomes (46.4 vs 32.3%, P = 0.12; 38.6 vs 30.6%, P = 0.10; and 36.4 vs 28.9%, P = 0.10, respectively). This held true for patients with hyperacute strokes of less than four-hour onset. Lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (11.9 vs 18.2, P = \u3c.001) and younger age (62.5 vs 74.9 years (P \u3c .001) were associated with improved outcomes. On multiple regression analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.02) and baseline NIHSS score (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42-1.98) were associated with improved outcomes while DIDO time was not associated with better outcome (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.30). Conclusion: Although the DIDO time was shorter for patients with a good outcome, this was non-significant in multiple regression analysis. Receipt of intravenous thrombolysis and time to EVT were not associated with better outcomes, while male gender, lower age, arrival by private vehicle, and lower NIHSS score portended better outcomes. No absolute DIDO-time cutoff or modifiable factor was associated with improved outcomes for LVOS. This study underscores the need to streamline DIDO times but not to set an artificial DIDO time benchmark to meet

Factors associated with door-in-door-out times in large vessel occlusion stroke patients undergoing endovascular therapy.

INTRODUCTION: In the management of large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS), patients are frequently evaluated first at a non-endovascular stroke center and later transferred to an endovascular stroke center (ESC) for endovascular treatment (EVT). The door-in-door-out time (DIDO) is frequently used as a benchmark for transferring hospitals though there is no universally accepted nor evidenced-based DIDO time. The goal of this study was to identify factors affecting DIDO times in LVOS patients who ultimately underwent EVT. METHODS: The Optimizing Prehospital Use of Stroke Systems of Care-Reacting to Changing Paradigms (OPUS-REACH) registry is comprised of all LVOS patients who underwent EVT at one of nine endovascular centers in the Northeast United States between 2015 and 2020. We queried the registry for all patients who were transferred from a non-ESC to one of the nine ESCs for EVT. Univariate analysis was performed using t-tests to obtain a p value. A priori, we defined a p value of RESULTS: 511 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean DIDO times for all patients was 137.8 min. Vascular imaging and treatment at a non-certified stroke center were associated with longer DIDO times by 23 and 14 min, respectively. On multivariate analyses, the acquisition of vascular imaging was associated with 16 additional minutes spent at the non-ESC while presentation to a non-stroke certified hospital was associated with 20 additional minutes spent at the transferring hospital. The administration of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) was associated with 15 min less spent at the non-ESC. DISCUSSION: Vascular imaging and non-stroke certified stroke centers were associated with longer DIDO times. Non-ESCs should integrate vascular imaging into their workflow as feasible to reduce DIDO times. Further work examining other details regarding the transfer process such as transfer via ground or air, could help further identify opportunities to improve DIDO times