Cost-Effectiveness of Advanced Neuroimaging for Transient and Minor Neurological Events in the Emergency Department.

Background Accurate diagnosis of patients with transient or minor neurological events can be challenging. Recent studies suggest that advanced neuroimaging can improve diagnostic accuracy in low-risk patients with transient or minor neurological symptoms, but a cost-effective emergency department diagnostic evaluation strategy remains uncertain. Methods and Results We constructed a decision-analytic model to evaluate 2 diagnostic evaluation strategies for patients with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms: (1) obtain advanced neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging brain and magnetic resonance angiography head and neck) on every patient or (2) current emergency department standard-of-care clinical evaluation with basic neuroimaging. Main probability variables were: proportion of patients with true ischemic events, strategy specificity and sensitivity, and recurrent stroke rate. Direct healthcare costs were included. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, conducted sensitivity analyses, and evaluated various diagnostic test parameters primarily using a 1-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness standards would be met if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than willingness to pay. We defined willingness to pay as $100 000 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year. Our primary and sensitivity analyses found that the advanced neuroimaging strategy was more cost-effective than emergency department standard of care. The incremental effectiveness of the advanced neuroimaging strategy was slightly less than the standard-of-care strategy, but the standard-of-care strategy was more costly. Potentially superior diagnostic approaches to the modeled advanced neuroimaging strategy would have to be >92% specific, >70% sensitive, and cost less than or equal to standard-of-care strategy's cost. Conclusions Obtaining advanced neuroimaging on emergency department patient with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms was the more cost-effective strategy in our model.

Folding a neuroscience center into streamlined COVID-19 response teams: Lessons in origami.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic epicenter in Bronx, NY, the Montefiore Neuroscience Center required rapid and drastic changes when considering the delivery of neurologic care, health and safety of staff, and continued education and safety for house staff. Health care leaders rely on principles that can be in conflict during a disaster response such as this pandemic, with equal commitments to ensure the best care for those stricken with COVID-19, provide high-quality care and advocacy for patients and families coping with neurologic disease, and advocate for the health and safety of health care teams, particularly house staff and colleagues who are most vulnerable. In our attempt to balance these principles, over 3 weeks, we reformatted our inpatient neuroscience services by reducing from 4 wards to just 1, in the following weeks delivering care to over 600 hospitalized patients with neuro-COVID and over 1,742 total neuroscience hospital bed days. This description from members of our leadership team provides an on-the-ground account of our effort to respond nimbly to a complex and evolving surge of patients with COVID in a large urban hospital network. Our efforts were based on (1) strategies to mitigate exposure and transmission, (2) protection of the health and safety of staff, (3) alleviation of logistical delays and strains in the system, and (4) facilitating coordinated communication. Each center's experience will add to knowledge of best practices, and emerging research will help us gain insights into an evidence-based approach to neurologic care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.