Performance of Thrombectomy-Capable, Comprehensive, and Primary Stroke Centers in Reperfusion Therapies for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Report from the Get With The Guidelines Stroke Registry: Stroke Outcomes Per Hospital Certification Status.

ABSTRACT

Background: The thrombectomy-capable stroke center (TSC) is a recently introduced intermediate tier of accreditation for hospitals caring for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The comparative quality and clinical outcomes of reperfusion therapies at TSCs, primary stroke centers (PSCs), and comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) has not been well delineated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational, cohort study from 2018-2020 that included patients with AIS who received endovascular (EVT) and/or intravenous (IVT) reperfusion therapies at CSC, TSC, or PSC. Participants were recruited from Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry. Study endpoints included timeliness of IVT and EVT, successful reperfusion, discharge destination, discharge mortality, and functional independence at discharge. Results: Among 84,903 included patients, 48,682 received EVT, of whom 73% were treated at CSCs, 22% at PSCs, and 4% at TSCs. The median annual EVT volume was 76 for CSCs, 55 for TSCs, and 32 for PSCs. Patient differences by center status included higher NIHSS, longer onset-to-arrival time, and higher transfer-in rates for CSC/TSC/PSC, respectively. In adjusted analyses, the likelihood of achieving the goal door-to-needle time was higher in CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.17-1.66) and in TSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.08-1.96). Similarly, the odds of achieving the goal door-to-puncture time were higher in CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.13-2.21). CSCs and TSCs also demonstrated better clinical efficacy outcomes compared to PSCs. The odds of discharge to home or rehabilitation were higher in CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.06-1.31), while the odds of in-hospital mortality/discharge to hospice were lower in both CSCs compared to PSCs (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and TSCs compared to PSCs (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75-0.98). There were no significant differences in any of the quality-of-care metrics and clinical outcomes between TSCs and CSCs. Conclusions: In this study representing national US practice, CSCs and TSCs exceeded PSCs in key quality-of-care reperfusion metrics and outcomes, whereas TSCs and CSCs demonstrated similar performance. Considering that over one-fifth of all EVT procedures during the study period were conducted at PSCs, it may be desirable to explore national initiatives aimed at facilitating the elevation of eligible PSCs to a higher certification status.