The Role of CT Perfusion in Defining the Clinically Relevant Core Infarction to Guide Thrombectomy Selection in Patients with Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Infarct core assessment on presentation is important to evaluate salvageable tissue to select patients for thrombectomy. Our study aims to evaluate the correlation between infarct core volume measured by computed tomography (CT) perfusion (CTP) and magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging (MR-DWI) in patients with acute large-vessel occlusion. METHODS: We studied patients who underwent CTP on presentation to the emergency department for stroke symptoms. National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), collateral status, symptomatic vessels, and modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days were collected. Admission infarct core volume was measured on initial relative cerebral blood volume and final infarct core volume on follow-up DWI. The correlation between two measures was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were studied of which 41.9% were female. Median NIHSS was 13 (2-30). Middle cerebral artery occlusion was present in 53 (71.6%) patients and 54 (72.9%) had good collaterals. Good functional outcome of mRS 0-2 was achieved by 60.8% at 90 days. There was a strong correlation between CTP and MR-DWI (r = .94). There was no significant difference between volume (in milliliters) on CTP (54.1 ± 69.8) and volume on DWI (50.3 ± 59.7; P = .18) using the paired t-test. CONCLUSION: CTP provides a good estimation of the core infarct volume. It performs well within the clinically relevant thresholds for patient selection for thrombectomy.

Stroke code simulation benefits advanced practice providers similar to neurology residents.

BACKGROUND: Advanced practice providers (APPs) are important members of stroke teams. Stroke code simulations offer valuable experience in the evaluation and treatment of stroke patients without compromising patient care. We hypothesized that simulation training would increase APP confidence, comfort level, and preparedness in leading a stroke code similar to neurology residents. METHODS: This is a prospective quasi-experimental, pretest/posttest study. Nine APPs and 9 neurology residents participated in 3 standardized simulated cases to determine need for IV thrombolysis, thrombectomy, and blood pressure management for intracerebral hemorrhage. Emergency medicine physicians and neurologists were preceptors. APPs and residents completed a survey before and after the simulation. Generalized mixed modeling assuming a binomial distribution was used to evaluate change. RESULTS: On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), confidence in leading a stroke code increased from 2.4 to 4.2 (p < 0.05) among APPs. APPs reported improved comfort level in rapidly assessing a stroke patient for thrombolytics (3.1-4.2; p < 0.05), making the decision to give thrombolytics (2.8 vs 4.2; p < 0.05), and assessing a patient for embolectomy (2.4-4.0; p < 0.05). There was no difference in the improvement observed in all the survey questions as compared to neurology residents. CONCLUSION: Simulation training is a beneficial part of medical education for APPs and should be considered in addition to traditional didactics and clinical training. Further research is needed to determine whether simulation education of APPs results in improved treatment times and outcomes of acute stroke patients.