Thrombectomy after in-house stroke in the transfer population.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) who initially present to a non-thrombectomy-capable center ("spoke") have worse outcomes than those presenting directly to a thrombectomy-capable center ("hub"). Furthermore, patients who suffer in-hospital strokes (IHS) suffer worse outcomes than those suffering strokes in the community. Data on patients who suffer IHS at a spoke hospital is lacking. We aim to characterize this particularly vulnerable population, define their outcomes, and compare them to patients who develop IHS at a hub institution. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from patients suffering an IHS at a spoke hospital who were then transferred to the hub hospital for endovascular therapy (EVT). We then compared outcomes of these patients under EVT after developing IHS at the hub institution. RESULTS: A total of 108 IHS patients met inclusion criteria 91 (84%) at a spoke facility and 17 (16%) at the hub facility. Baseline characteristics and reason for hospital admission were comparable between the two groups. Time from imaging to IV-tPA administration (17 vs. 70 min, p = 0.01) and time to EVT (120 vs. 247 min, p = 0.001) were significantly shorter in the hub group. More patients had a 90 day-mRS of 0-3 in the hub group than the spoke group (57% vs 22%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing EVT after suffering IHS at a spoke hospital have significantly higher rates of poor outcomes compared to patients who suffer IHS at a hub hospital. Prolonged time delays in the initiation of IV-tPA and EVT represent areas of improvement.