Validity of Early Outcomes as Indicators for Comparing Hospitals on Quality of Stroke Care

BACKGROUND: Insight into outcome variation between hospitals could help to improve quality of care. We aimed to assess the validity of early outcomes as quality indicators for acute ischemic stroke care for patients treated with endovascular therapy (EVT). METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) Registry, a large multicenter prospective cohort study including 3279 patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing EVT. Random effect linear and proportional odds regression were used to analyze the effect of case mix on between-hospital differences in 2 early outcomes: the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 24 to 48 hours and the expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score. Between-hospital variation in outcomes was assessed using the variance of random hospital effects (tau2). In addition, we estimated the correlation between hospitals’ EVT-patient volume and (case-mix– adjusted) outcomes. Both early outcomes and case-mix characteristics varied significantly across hospitals. Between-hospital variation in the expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score was not influenced by case-mix adjustment (tau2=0.17 in both models). In contrast, for the NIHSS score at 24 to 48 hours, case-mix adjustment led to a decrease in variation between hospitals (tau2 decreases from 0.19 to 0.17). Hospitals’ EVT-patient volume was strongly correlated with higher expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores (r=0.48) and weakly with lower NIHSS score at 24 to 48 hours (r=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Between-hospital variation in NIHSS score at 24 to 48 hours is significantly influenced by case-mix but not by patient volume. In contrast, between-hospital variation in expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score is strongly influenced by EVT-patient volume but not by case-mix. Both outcomes may be suitable for comparing hospitals on quality of care, provided that adequate adjustment for case-mix is applied for NIHSS score.</p

Validity of Early Outcomes as Indicators for Comparing Hospitals on Quality of Stroke Care

Background Insight into outcome variation between hospitals could help to improve quality of care. We aimed to assess the validity of early outcomes as quality indicators for acute ischemic stroke care for patients treated with endovascular therapy (EVT). Methods and Results We used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) Registry, a large multicenter prospective cohort study including 3279 patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing EVT. Random effect linear and proportional odds regression were used to analyze the effect of case mix on between‐hospital differences in 2 early outcomes: the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 24 to 48 hours and the expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score. Between‐hospital variation in outcomes was assessed using the variance of random hospital effects (tau2). In addition, we estimated the correlation between hospitals' EVT‐patient volume and (case‐mix–adjusted) outcomes. Both early outcomes and case‐mix characteristics varied significantly across hospitals. Between‐hospital variation in the expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score was not influenced by case‐mix adjustment (tau 2=0.17 in both models). In contrast, for the NIHSS score at 24 to 48 hours, case‐mix adjustment led to a decrease in variation between hospitals (tau 2 decreases from 0.19 to 0.17). Hospitals' EVT‐patient volume was strongly correlated with higher expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores (r=0.48) and weakly with lower NIHSS score at 24 to 48 hours (r=0.15). Conclusions Between‐hospital variation in NIHSS score at 24 to 48 hours is significantly influenced by case‐mix but not by patient volume. In contrast, between‐hospital variation in expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score is strongly influenced by EVT‐patient volume but not by case‐mix. Both outcomes may be suitable for comparing hospitals on quality of care, provided that adequate adjustment for case‐mix is applied for NIHSS score

Association between type of intervention center and outcomes after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke: Results from the MR CLEAN Registry

Background: Endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is performed in intervention centers that provide the full range of neuro(endo)vascular care (level 1) and centers that only perform EVT for AIS (level 2). We compared outcomes between these center types and assessed whether differences in outcomes could be explained by center volume (CV). Patients and methods: We analyzed patients included in the MR CLEAN Registry (2014–2018), a registry of all EVT-treated patients in the Netherlands. Our primary outcome was the shift on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) after 90 days (ordinal regression). Secondary outcomes were the NIHSS 24–48 h post-EVT, door-to-groin time (DTGT), procedure time (linear regression), and recanalization (binary logistic regression). We compared outcomes between level 1 and 2 centers using multilevel regression models, with center as random intercept. We adjusted for relevant baseline factors, and in case of observed differences, we additionally adjusted for CV. Results: Of the 5144 patients 62% were treated in level 1 centers. We observed no significant differences between center types in mRS (adjusted(a)cOR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.54), NIHSS (aβ: 0.31, 95% CI: −0.52 to 1.14), procedure duration (aβ: 0.88, 95% CI: −5.21 to 6.97), or DTGT (aβ: 4.24, 95% CI: −7.09 to 15.57). The probability for recanalization was higher in level 1 centers compared to level 2 centers (aOR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.33), and this difference probably depended on CV. Conclusions: We found no significant differences, that were independent of CV, in the outcomes of EVT for AIS between level 1 and level 2 intervention centers

Endovascular treatment versus no endovascular treatment after 6–24 h in patients with ischaemic stroke and collateral flow on CT angiography (MR CLEAN-LATE) in the Netherlands:a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Endovascular treatment for anterior circulation ischaemic stroke is effective and safe within a 6 h window. MR CLEAN-LATE aimed to assess efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment for patients treated in the late window (6–24 h from symptom onset or last seen well) selected on the basis of the presence of collateral flow on CT angiography (CTA). Methods: MR CLEAN-LATE was a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in 18 stroke intervention centres in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older with ischaemic stroke, presenting in the late window with an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion and collateral flow on CTA, and a neurological deficit score of at least 2 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale were included. Patients who were eligible for late-window endovascular treatment were treated according to national guidelines (based on clinical and perfusion imaging criteria derived from the DAWN and DEFUSE-3 trials) and excluded from MR CLEAN-LATE enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive endovascular treatment or no endovascular treatment (control), in addition to best medical treatment. Randomisation was web based, with block sizes ranging from eight to 20, and stratified by centre. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days after randomisation. Safety outcomes included all-cause mortality at 90 days after randomisation and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. All randomly assigned patients who provided deferred consent or died before consent could be obtained comprised the modified intention-to-treat population, in which the primary and safety outcomes were assessed. Analyses were adjusted for predefined confounders. Treatment effect was estimated with ordinal logistic regression and reported as an adjusted common odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN, ISRCTN19922220. Findings: Between Feb 2, 2018, and Jan 27, 2022, 535 patients were randomly assigned, and 502 (94%) patients provided deferred consent or died before consent was obtained (255 in the endovascular treatment group and 247 in the control group; 261 [52%] females). The median mRS score at 90 days was lower in the endovascular treatment group than in the control group (3 [IQR 2–5] vs 4 [2–6]), and we observed a shift towards better outcomes on the mRS for the endovascular treatment group (adjusted common OR 1·67 [95% CI 1·20–2·32]). All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between groups (62 [24%] of 255 patients vs 74 [30%] of 247 patients; adjusted OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·44–1·18]). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred more often in the endovascular treatment group than in the control group (17 [7%] vs four [2%]; adjusted OR 4·59 [95% CI 1·49–14·10]). Interpretation: In this study, endovascular treatment was efficacious and safe for patients with ischaemic stroke caused by an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion who presented 6–24 h from onset or last seen well, and who were selected on the basis of the presence of collateral flow on CTA. Selection of patients for endovascular treatment in the late window could be primarily based on the presence of collateral flow. Funding: Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke consortium, Dutch Heart Foundation, Stryker, Medtronic, Cerenovus, Top Sector Life Sciences &amp; Health, and the Netherlands Brain Foundation.</p