BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is little information available about the effects of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) hospital notification on transfer and intrahospital processing times in cases of acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: This study retrospectively investigated the real transfer and imaging processing times for cases of suspected acute stroke (AS) with EMS notification of a requirement for intravenous (IV) tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) and for cases without notification. Also we compared the intra-hospital processing times for receiving t-PA between patients with and without EMS prehospital notification. RESULTS: Between December 2008 and August 2009, the EMS transported 102 patients with suspected AS to our stroke center. During the same period, 33 patients received IV t-PA without prehospital notification from the EMS. The mean real transfer time after the EMS call was 56.0±32.0 min. Patients with a transfer distance of more than 40 km could not be transported to our center within 60 min. Among the 102 patients, 55 were transferred via the EMS to our emergency room for IV t-PA. The positive predictive value for stroke (90.9% vs. 68.1%, p=0.005) was much higher and the real transfer time was much faster in patients with an EMS t-PA call (47.7±23.1 min, p=0.004) than in those without one (56.3±32.4 min). The door-to-imaging time (17.8±11.0 min vs. 26.9±11.5 min, p=0.01) and door-to-needle time (29.7±9.6 min vs. 42.1±18.1 min, p=0.01) were significantly shorter in the 18 patients for whom there was prehospital notification and who ultimately received t-PA than in those for whom there was no prehospital notification. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that prehospital notification could enable the rapid dispatch of AS patients needing IV t-PA to a stroke centre. In addition, it could reduce intrahospital delays, particularly, imaging processing times.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is little information available about the effects of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) hospital notification on transfer and intrahospital processing times in cases of acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: This study retrospectively investigated the real transfer and imaging processing times for cases of suspected acute stroke (AS) with EMS notification of a requirement for intravenous (IV) tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) and for cases without notification. Also we compared the intra-hospital processing times for receiving t-PA between patients with and without EMS prehospital notification. RESULTS: Between December 2008 and August 2009, the EMS transported 102 patients with suspected AS to our stroke center. During the same period, 33 patients received IV t-PA without prehospital notification from the EMS. The mean real transfer time after the EMS call was 56.0±32.0 min. Patients with a transfer distance of more than 40 km could not be transported to our center within 60 min. Among the 102 patients, 55 were transferred via the EMS to our emergency room for IV t-PA. The positive predictive value for stroke (90.9% vs. 68.1%, p=0.005) was much higher and the real transfer time was much faster in patients with an EMS t-PA call (47.7±23.1 min, p=0.004) than in those without one (56.3±32.4 min). The door-to-imaging time (17.8±11.0 min vs. 26.9±11.5 min, p=0.01) and door-to-needle time (29.7±9.6 min vs. 42.1±18.1 min, p=0.01) were significantly shorter in the 18 patients for whom there was prehospital notification and who ultimately received t-PA than in those for whom there was no prehospital notification. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that prehospital notification could enable the rapid dispatch of AS patients needing IV t-PA to a stroke centre. In addition, it could reduce intrahospital delays, particularly, imaging processing times.
Entities:
Keywords:
prehospital notification; stroke; stroke care system; thrombolysis
Authors: I L Katzan; A J Furlan; L E Lloyd; J I Frank; D L Harper; J A Hinchey; J P Hammel; A Qu; C A Sila Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-03-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Harold P Adams; Gregory del Zoppo; Mark J Alberts; Deepak L Bhatt; Lawrence Brass; Anthony Furlan; Robert L Grubb; Randall T Higashida; Edward C Jauch; Chelsea Kidwell; Patrick D Lyden; Lewis B Morgenstern; Adnan I Qureshi; Robert H Rosenwasser; Phillip A Scott; Eelco F M Wijdicks Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-04-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ming-Ju Hsieh; Sung-Chun Tang; Wen-Chu Chiang; Kuang-Yu Huang; Anna Marie Chang; Patrick Chow-In Ko; Li-Kai Tsai; Jiann-Shing Jeng; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma Journal: J Formos Med Assoc Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Mohit Sharma; Elizabeth Helzner; Richard Sinert; Steven Richard Levine; Ethan Samuel Brandler Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Cheryl B Lin; Eric D Peterson; Eric E Smith; Jeffrey L Saver; Li Liang; Ying Xian; Daiwai M Olson; Bimal R Shah; Adrian F Hernandez; Lee H Schwamm; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Anne Margreet van Dishoeck; Diederik W J Dippel; Maaike Dirks; Caspar W N Looman; Johan P Mackenbach; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Extra Date: 2014-06-24
Authors: Nancy K Glober; Karl A Sporer; Kama Z Guluma; John P Serra; Joe A Barger; John F Brown; Gregory H Gilbert; Kristi L Koenig; Eric M Rudnick; Angelo A Salvucci Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-02