New technologies and emergency department excellence

....

Telemedicine and patients with heart failure: evidence and unresolved issues

ABSTRACT Heart failure is the leading cause of cardiac-related hospitalizations. Limited access to reevaluations and outpatient appointments restricts the application of modern therapies. Telemedicine has become an essential resource in the healthcare system because of its countless benefits, such as higher and more frequent appointments and faster titration of medications. This narrative review aimed to demonstrate the evidence and unresolved issues related to the use of telemedicine in patients with heart failure. No studies have examined heart failure prevention; however, several studies have addressed the prevention of decompensation with positive results. Telemedicine can be used to evaluate all patients with heart failure, and many telemedicine platforms are available. Several strategies, including both noninvasive (phone calls, weight measurement, and virtual visits) and invasive (implantable pulmonary artery catheters) strategies can be implemented. Given these benefits, telemedicine is highly desirable, particularly for vulnerable groups. Although some questions remain unanswered, the development of new technologies can complement remote visits and improve patient care

In-hospital stroke protocol outcomes before and after the implementation of neurological assessments by telemedicine: an observational case–control study

PurposeStroke is the second leading cause of global adult mortality and the primary cause of disability. A rapid assessment by a neurologist for general and reperfusion treatments in ischemic strokes is linked to decreased mortality and disability. Telestroke assessment is a strategy that allows for neurological consultations with experienced professionals, even in remote emergency contexts. No randomized studies have compared face-to-face neurological care outcomes with telestroke care. Whether neurologists in an institution achieve better results remotely than in person is also unknown. This study aimed to compare mortality and other outcomes commonly measured in stroke protocols for stroke patients assessed by a neurologist via face-to-face evaluations and telestroke assessment.MethodsObservational single-center retrospective study from August/2009 to February/2022, enrolling 2,689 patients with ischemic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intracerebral hemorrhage. Group 1 (G1) comprised 2,437 patients with in-person neurological assessments, and Telemedicine Group 2 (G2) included 252 patients.ResultsThe in-person group had higher admission NIHSS scores (G1, 3 (0; 36) vs. G2, 2 (0; 26), p < 0.001). The door-to-groin puncture time was lower in the in-person group than in the telestroke group (G1, 103 (42; 310) vs. G2, 151 (109; 340), p < 0.001). The telestroke group showed superior metrics for door-to-imaging time, symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate in ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis, hospital stay duration, higher rates of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, and lower mortality. Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate was smaller in the group evaluated via telestroke (G1, 5.1% vs. G2, 1.1%, p = 0.016). Intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy rates were significantly higher in telestroke group: (G1, 8.6% vs. G2, 18.2%, p < 0.001 and G1, 5.1% vs. G2, 10.4%, p = 0.002, respectively). Mortality was lower in the telestroke group than in the in-person group (G1, 11.1% vs. G2, 6.7%, p = 0.001). The percentage of patients with an mRS score of 0–2 at discharge was similar in both groups when adjusting for NIHSS score and age.ConclusionThe same neurological emergency team may assess stroke patients in-person or by telemedicine, with excellent outcome metrics. This study reaffirms telestroke as a safe tool in acute stroke care