The Extended Treatment Window’s Impact on Emergency Systems of Care for Acute Stroke

The window for acute ischemic stroke treatment was previously limited to 4.5 hours for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and to 6 hours for thrombectomy. Recent studies using advanced imaging selection expand this window for select patients up to 24 hours from last known well. These studies directly affect emergency stroke management, including prehospital triage and emergency department (ED) management of suspected stroke patients. This narrative review summarizes the data expanding the treatment window for ischemic stroke to 24 hours and discusses these implications on stroke systems of care. It analyzes the implications on prehospital protocols to identify and transfer large‐vessel occlusion stroke patients, on issues of distributive justice, and on ED management to provide advanced imaging and access to thrombectomy centers. The creation of high‐performing systems of care to manage acute ischemic stroke patients requires academic emergency physician leadership attentive to the rapidly changing science of stroke care.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150496/1/acem13698.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150496/2/acem13698_am.pd

The Extended Treatment Window\u27s Impact on Emergency Systems of Care for Acute Stroke.

The window for acute ischemic stroke treatment was previously limited to 4.5 hours for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and to 6 hours for thrombectomy. Recent studies using advanced imaging selection expand this window for select patients up to 24 hours from last known well. These studies directly affect emergency stroke management, including pre-hospital triage and emergency department management of suspected stroke patients. This narrative review summarizes the data expanding the treatment window for ischemic stroke to 24 hours and discusses these implications on stroke systems of care. It analyzes the implications on pre-hospital protocols to identify and transfer large vessel occlusion stroke patients, on issues of distributive justice, and on emergency department management to provide advanced imaging and access to thrombectomy centers. The creation of high-performing systems of care to manage acute ischemic stroke patients requires academic emergency physician leadership attentive to the rapidly changing science of stroke care. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

A survey of stroke-related capabilities among a sample of US community emergency departments

Objectives: Most acute stroke research is conducted at academic and larger hospitals, which may differ from many non-academic (ie, community) and smaller hospitals with respect to resources and consultant availability. We describe current emergency department (ED) and hospital-level stroke-related capabilities among a sample of community EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL) stroke collaborative. Methods: Among E-QUAL-participating EDs, we conducted a survey to collect data on ED and hospital stroke-related structural and process capabilities associated with quality of stroke care delivery and patient outcomes. EDs submitted data using a web-based submission portal. We present descriptive statistics of self-reported capabilities. Results: Of 154 participating EDs in 30 states, 97 (63%) completed the survey. Many were rural (33%); most (82%) were not certified stroke centers. Although most reported having stroke protocols (67%), many did not include hemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack (45% and 57%, respectively). Capability to perform emergent head computed tomography and to administer thrombolysis were not universal (absent in 4% and 5%, respectively). Access to neurologic consultants varied; 18% reported no 24/7 availability onsite or remotely. Of those with access, 48% reported access through telemedicine only. Admission capabilities also varied with patient transfer commonly performed (79%). Conclusion: Stroke-related capabilities vary substantially between community EDs and are different from capabilities typically found in larger stroke centers. These data may be valuable for identifying areas for future investment. Additionally, the design of stroke quality improvement interventions and metrics to evaluate emergency stroke care delivery should account for these key structural differences