Complications During Inter-Hospital Transfer of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke for Endovascular Therapy.

Purpose: Few data are available on complications occurring during inter-hospital transfer from a primary stroke center (PSC) to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) for endovascular treatment (EVT) after large vessel occlusion (LVO). Therefore, we prospectively studied data from consecutive patients transferred from our PSC to the next CSC during 4 years to determine the incidence and risk factors of complications during transfer. Methods: This observational, single-center study included consecutive patients transferred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018. During inter-hospital transfer, all medical incidents were systematically recorded. A new complete clinical examination was performed on arrival at the CSC. Results: Among the 253 patients transferred to the CSC during the study period, 68 (26.9%) had one or more complications. In 11 patients (4.3%) these were life-threatening and required emergency intervention by a physician. Baseline characteristics were not different between patients with and without complications, except for the LVO location. Specifically, basilar artery (BA) occlusion was strongly associated with complications during the transport (p < 0.0005). Conclusion: Complications occurred in 26.9% of patients during transfer. Only BA occlusion could predict complication during transfer. Future studies should identify variables to help stratifying patients at high and low risk of complications during transportation.

Mechanical Recanalization after Transfer from a Distant Primary Stroke Center: Effectiveness and Future Directions.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the effectiveness of endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) admitted to a primary stroke center (PSC). The aim of this study was to assess EVT effectiveness after transfer from a PSC to a distant (156 km apart; 1.5 hour by car) comprehensive stroke center (CSC), and to discuss perspectives to improve access to EVT, if indicated. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Analysis of the data collected in a 6-year prospective registry of patients admitted to a PSC for AIS due to LVO and selected for transfer to a distant CSC for EVT. The rate of transfer, futile transfer, EVT, reperfusion (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score ≥2b-3), and relevant time measures were determined. RESULTS: Among the 529 patients eligible, 278 (52.6%) were transferred and 153 received EVT (55% of transferred patients) followed by reperfusion in 115 (overall reperfusion rate: 21.7%). Median times (interquartile range) were: 90 minutes (76-110) for PSC-door-in to PSC-door-out, 88 minutes (65-104) for PSC-door-out to CSC-door-in, 262 minutes (239-316) for PSC-imaging to reperfusion, and 393 minutes (332-454) for symptom onset to reperfusion. At 3 months, rates of favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) were not significantly different between patients eligible for EVT (42.4%), transferred patients (49.1%) and patients who underwent EVT (34.1%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that transfer to a distant CSC is associated with reduced access to early EVT. These results argue in favor of on-site EVT at high volume PSCs that are distant from the CSC.