Urban-rural inequalities in IV thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: A nationwide study.

INTRODUCTION: Rural residency has been associated with lower reperfusion treatment rates for acute ischemic stroke in many countries. We aimed to explore urban-rural differences in IV thrombolysis rates in a small country with universal health care, and short transport times to stroke units. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this nationwide cohort study, adult ischemic stroke patients registered in the Danish Stroke Registry (DSR) between 2015 and 2020 were included. The exposure was defined by residence rurality. Data from the DSR, Statistics Denmark, and the Danish Health Data Authority, were linked on the individual level using the Civil Registration Number. Adjusted treatment rates were calculated by balancing baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weights. RESULTS: Among the included 56,175 patients, prehospital delays were shortest for patients residing in capital municipalities (median 4.7 h), and longest for large town residents (median 7.1 h). Large town residents were predominantly admitted directly to a comprehensive stroke center (98.5%), whereas 30.9% of capital residents were admitted to a hospital with no reperfusion therapy available (non-RT unit). Treatment rates were similar among all non-rural residents (18.5%-18.7%), but slightly lower among rural residents (17.2% [95% CI 16.5-17.8]). After adjusting for age, sex, immigrant status, and educational attainment, rural residents reached treatment rates comparable to capital and large town residents at 18.5% (95% CI 17.7-19.4). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: While treatment rates varied minimally by urban-rural residency, substantial differences in median prehospital delay and admission to non-RT units underscored marked urban-rural differences in potential obstacles to reperfusion therapies.

Effect of urgency level on prehospital emergency transport times: a natural experiment.

Accurate estimation of ambulance transport time from the scene of incident to arrival at the emergency department (ED) is important for effective resource management and emergency care system planning. Further, differences in transport times between different urgency levels highlight the benefits of ambulance transports with highest urgency level in a setting where ambulances are allowed to not follow standard traffic rules. The objective of the study is to compare ambulance urgency level on the differences in estimates of ambulance transport times generated by Google Maps and the observed transport times in a prehospital setting where emergency vehicles have their own traffic laws. The study was designed as a natural experiment and register study. Ambulance transports dispatched with different levels of urgency (Level A and B) were included in the Central Denmark Region (a mixed urban and rural area) from March 10 to June 11, 2021. Ambulance transports for highest urgency level were compared to lowest urgency level with Google Maps estimated transport times as reference. We analyzed 1981 highest urgency level and 8.958 lowest urgency level ambulance transports. Google Maps significantly overestimated the duration of transports operating at highest level of urgency (Level A) by 1.9 min/10 km (95% CI 1.8; 2.0) in average and 4.8 min/10 km (95% CI 3.9; 5.6) for the first driven 10 km. Contrary, Google Maps significantly underestimated the duration of transports operating at lowest level of urgency (Level B) by -1.8 min/10 km (95% CI -2.1; -1.5) in average and -4.4 min/10 km (95% CI -5.4; -3.5) for the first driven 10 km. Google Maps systematically overestimates transport times of ambulance transports driven with Level A, the highest level of urgency in a setting where ambulances are allowed to not follow standard traffic rules. The results highlight the benefit of using urgency Level A and provide valuable information for emergency care management.

Remote Ischemic Conditioning for Acute Stroke: The RESIST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite some promising preclinical and clinical data, it remains uncertain whether remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) with transient cycles of limb ischemia and reperfusion is an effective treatment for acute stroke. Objective: To evaluate the effect of RIC when initiated in the prehospital setting and continued in the hospital on functional outcome in patients with acute stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 stroke centers in Denmark that included 1500 patients with prehospital stroke symptoms for less than 4 hours (enrolled March 16, 2018, to November 11, 2022; final follow-up, February 3, 2023). Intervention: The intervention was delivered using an inflatable cuff on 1 upper extremity (RIC cuff pressure, ≤200 mm Hg [n = 749] and sham cuff pressure, 20 mm Hg [n = 751]). Each treatment application consisted of 5 cycles of 5 minutes of cuff inflation followed by 5 minutes of cuff deflation. Treatment was started in the ambulance and repeated at least once in the hospital and then twice daily for 7 days among a subset of participants. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was improvement in functional outcome measured as a shift across the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days in the target population with a final diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Results: Among 1500 patients who were randomized (median age, 71 years; 591 women [41%]), 1433 (96%) completed the trial. Of these, 149 patients (10%) were diagnosed with transient ischemic attack and 382 (27%) with a stroke mimic. In the remaining 902 patients with a target diagnosis of stroke (737 [82%] with ischemic stroke and 165 [18%] with intracerebral hemorrhage), 436 underwent RIC and 466 sham treatment. The median mRS score at 90 days was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the RIC group and 1 (IQR, 1-3) in the sham group. RIC treatment was not significantly associated with improved functional outcome at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.20, P = .67; absolute difference in median mRS score, -1; -1.7 to -0.25). In all randomized patients, there were no significant differences in the number of serious adverse events: 169 patients (23.7%) in the RIC group with 1 or more serious adverse events vs 175 patients (24.3%) in the sham group (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.11; P = .68). Upper extremity pain during treatment and/or skin petechia occurred in 54 (7.2%) in the RIC group and 11 (1.5%) in the sham group. Conclusions and Relevance: RIC initiated in the prehospital setting and continued in the hospital did not significantly improve functional outcome at 90 days in patients with acute stroke. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03481777.

Too risky, too large, too late, or too mild-Reasons for not treating ischemic stroke patients and the related outcomes.

Background: Despite effective treatments, many patients are still not offered reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke. Methods: We present a single-center observational study on acute ischemic stroke patients, who presented as candidates for reperfusion therapy but were deemed ineligible after work-up. Reasons for non-treatment were obtained by studying patient files and subsequently grouped into "too risky" (e.g., anticoagulant use, comorbidities), "too large" (large infarct), "too late" (late presentation of stroke and wake-up strokes), or "too mild" (clinically mild/remitting symptoms). Modified Rankin scale (mRS) score was prospectively collected in all patients by a structured telephone interview. All non-treated patients with a National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 0-5 were compared with a similar cohort that was treated. Results: Of 529 patients with acute ischemic stroke arriving as reperfusion therapy candidates, 198 (37.4%) were not treated. The majority (42%) were not treated due to admission outside the treatment window (too late) and 24% had absolute contraindications (too risky). Only 8% was excluded because their infarct was too large [median Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score 3 (2-4)]. In the "too mild" group (14%) the percentage of patients not being independent at 90 days was 30%. The adjusted odds ratio for a better outcome (lower mRS) among treated patients with NIHSS 0-5 compared with non-treated was 1.93 (95% confidence interval 1.15-3.23). Conclusion: Presenting outside the treatment window is still the most common reason for not receiving therapy. Our study suggests a benefit of thrombolysis for patients with mild symptoms.