Influence of vascular imaging acquisition at local stroke centers on workflows in the drip-n-ship model: a RACECAT post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: The influence of vascular imaging acquisition on workflows at local stroke centers (LSCs) not capable of performing thrombectomy in patients with a suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke remains uncertain. We analyzed the impact of performing vascular imaging (VI+) or not (VI- at LSC arrival on variables related to workflows using data from the RACECAT Trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare workflows at the LSC among patients enrolled in the RACECAT Trial with or without VI acquisition. METHODS: We included patients with a diagnosis of ischemic stroke who were enrolled in the RACECAT Trial, a cluster-randomized trial that compared drip-n-ship versus mothership triage paradigms in patients with suspected acute LVO stroke allocated at the LSC. Outcome measures included time metrics related to workflows and the rate of interhospital transfers and thrombectomy among transferred patients. RESULTS: Among 467 patients allocated to a LSC, vascular imaging was acquired in 277 patients (59%), of whom 198 (71%) had a LVO. As compared with patients without vascular imaging, patients in the VI+ group were transferred less frequently as thrombectomy candidates to a thrombectomy-capable center (58% vs 74%, P=0.004), without significant differences in door-indoor-out time at the LSC (median minutes, VI+ 78 (IQR 69-96) vs VI- 76 (IQR 59-98), P=0.6). Among transferred patients, the VI+ group had higher rate of thrombectomy (69% vs 55%, P=0.016) and shorter door to puncture time (median minutes, VI+ 41 (IQR 26-53) vs VI- 54 (IQR 40-70), P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with a suspected LVO stroke initially evaluated at a LSC, vascular imaging acquisition might improve workflow times at thrombectomy-capable centers and reduce the rate of futile interhospital transfers. These results deserve further evaluation and should be replicated in other settings and geographies.

Sex and gender differences in acute stroke care: metrics, access to treatment and outcome. A territorial analysis of the Stroke Code System of Catalonia.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have reported differences in the management and outcome of women stroke patients in comparison with men. We aim to analyze sex and gender differences in the medical assistance, access to treatment and outcome of acute stroke patients in Catalonia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from a prospective population-based registry of stroke code activations in Catalonia (CICAT) from January/2016 to December/2019. The registry includes demographic data, stroke severity, stroke subtype, reperfusion therapy, and time workflow. Centralized clinical outcome at 90 days was assessed in patients receiving reperfusion therapy. RESULTS: A total of 23,371 stroke code activations were registered (54% men, 46% women). No differences in prehospital time metrics were observed. Women more frequently had a final diagnosis of stroke mimic, were older and had a previous worse functional situation. Among ischemic stroke patients, women had higher stroke severity and more frequently presented proximal large vessel occlusion. Women received more frequently reperfusion therapy (48.2% vs 43.1%, p < 0.001). Women tended to present a worse outcome at 90 days, especially for the group receiving only IVT (good outcome 56.7% vs 63.8%; p < 0.001), but not for the group of patients treated with IVT + MT or MT alone, although sex was not independently associated with clinical outcome in logistic regression analysis (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.94-1.23; p = 0.27) nor in the analysis after matching using the propensity score (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97-1.22). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We found some differences by sex in that acute stroke was more frequent in older women and the stroke severity was higher. We found no differences in medical assistance times, access to reperfusion treatment and early complications. Worse clinical outcome at 90 days in women was conditioned by stroke severity and older age, but not by sex itself.

Effectiveness of Thrombectomy in Stroke According to Baseline Prognostic Factors: Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of a Population-Based Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:  In real-world practice, the benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is uncertain in stroke patients with very favorable or poor prognostic profiles at baseline. We studied the effectiveness of MT versus medical treatment stratifying by different baseline prognostic factors. METHODS:  Retrospective analysis of 2,588 patients with an ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion nested in the population-based registry of stroke code activations in Catalonia from January 2017 to June 2019. The effect of MT on good functional outcome (modified Rankin Score ≤2) and survival at 3 months was studied using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis in three pre-defined baseline prognostic groups: poor (if pre-stroke disability, age >85 years, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] >25, time from onset >6 hours, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score <6, proximal vertebrobasilar occlusion, supratherapeutic international normalized ratio >3), good (if NIHSS <6 or distal occlusion, in the absence of poor prognostic factors), or reference (not meeting other groups' criteria). RESULTS:  Patients receiving MT (n=1,996, 77%) were younger, had less pre-stroke disability, and received systemic thrombolysis less frequently. These differences were balanced after the IPTW stratified by prognosis. MT was associated with good functional outcome in the reference (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0 to 4.4), and especially in the poor baseline prognostic stratum (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.6 to 5.9), but not in the good prognostic stratum. MT was associated with survival only in the poor prognostic stratum (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.3). CONCLUSIONS:  Despite their worse overall outcomes, the impact of thrombectomy over medical management was more substantial in patients with poorer baseline prognostic factors than patients with good prognostic factors.