Ultraearly thrombolysis by an anesthesiologist in a mobile stroke unit: A prospective, controlled intervention study

Background Acute stroke treatment in mobile stroke units (MSU) is feasible and reduces time-to-treatment, but the optimal staffing model is unknown. We wanted to explore if integrating thrombolysis of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in an anesthesiologist-based emergency medical services (EMS) reduces time-to-treatment and is safe. Methods A nonrandomized, prospective, controlled intervention study. Inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, nonpregnant, stroke symptoms with onset ≤4 h. The MSU staffing is inspired by the Norwegian Helicopter Emergency Medical Services crew with an anesthesiologist, a paramedic-nurse and a paramedic. Controls were included by conventional ambulances in the same catchment area. Primary outcome was onset-to-treatment time. Secondary outcomes were alarm-to-treatment time, thrombolytic rate and functional outcome. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and mortality. Results We included 440 patients. MSU median (IQR) onset-to-treatment time was 101 (71–155) minutes versus 118 (90–176) minutes in controls, p = 0.007. MSU median (IQR) alarm-to-treatment time was 53 (44–65) minutes versus 74 (63–95) minutes in controls, p < 0.001. Golden hour treatment was achieved in 15.2% of the MSU patients versus 3.7% in the controls, p = 0.005. The thrombolytic rate was higher in the MSU (81% vs 59%, p = 0.001). MSU patients were more often discharged home (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 2.36 [1.11–5.03]). There were no other significant differences in outcomes. Conclusions Integrating thrombolysis of AIS in the anesthesiologist-based EMS reduces time-to-treatment without negatively affecting outcomes. An MSU based on the EMS enables prehospital assessment of acute stroke in addition to other medical and traumatic emergencies and may facilitate future implementation.publishedVersio

Stroke severity quantification by critical care physicians in a mobile stroke unit

Background Cerebral revascularization in acute stroke requires robust diagnostic tools close to symptom onset. The quantitative National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is widely used in-hospital, whereas shorter and less specific stroke scales are used in the prehospital field. This study explored the accuracy and potential clinical benefit of using NIHSS prehospitally. Patients and methods Thirteen anesthesiologists trained in prehospital critical care enrolled patients with suspected acute stroke in a mobile stroke unit. NIHSS was completed twice in the acute phase: first prehospitally and then by an on-call resident neurologist at the receiving hospital. The agreement between prehospital and in-hospital NIHSS scores was assessed by a Bland–Altman plot, and inter-rater agreement for predefined clinical categories was tested using Cohen’s κ. Results This Norwegian Acute Stroke Prehospital Project study included 40 patients for analyses. The mean numerical difference between prehospital and in-hospital NIHSS scores was 0.85, with corresponding limits of agreement from − 5.94 to 7.64. Inter-rater agreement (κ) for the corresponding clinical categories was 0.38. A prehospital diagnostic workup (NIHSS and computed tomographic examination) was completed in median (quartiles) 10 min (range: 7–14 min). Time between the prehospital and in-hospital NIHSS scores was median (quartiles) 40 min (32–48 min). Conclusion Critical care physicians in a mobile stroke unit may use the NIHSS as a clinical tool in the assessment of patients experiencing acute stroke. The disagreement in NIHSS scores was mainly for very low values and would not have changed the handling of the patients