BACKGROUND: The benefits of intravenous tissue-plasminogen activator (tPA) in acute ischemic stroke are time-dependent. Emergency medical services (EMS) hospital prenotification of an incoming patient with potential stroke may provide a means of reducing evaluation and treatment times and improving treatment rates; yet, available data are limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 371 988 patients with acute ischemic stroke transported by EMS and enrolled in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2011. Prenotification occurred in 249 197 (67.0%) of EMS-transported patients. Among eligible patients arriving by 2 hours, patients with EMS prenotification were more likely to be treated with tPA within 3 hours (82.8% versus 79.2%, absolute difference +3.5%, P<0.0001, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale-documented cohort; 73.0% versus 64.0%, absolute difference +9.0%, P<0.0001, overall cohort). Patients with EMS prenotification had shorter door-to-imaging times (26 minutes versus 31 minutes, P<0.0001), shorter door-to-needle times (78 minutes versus 80 minutes, P<0.0001), and shorter symptom onset-to-needle times (141 minutes versus 145 minutes, P<0.0001). In multivariable and modified Poisson regression analyses accounting for the clustering of patients within hospitals, use of EMS prenotification was independently associated with greater likelihood of door-to-imaging times ≤25 minutes, door-to-needle times for tPA ≤60 minutes, onset-to-needle times ≤120 minutes, and tPA use within 3 hours. CONCLUSIONS: EMS hospital prenotification is associated with improved evaluation, timelier stroke treatment, and more eligible patients treated with tPA. These results support the need for initiatives targeted at increasing EMS prenotification rates as a mechanism from improving quality of care and outcomes in stroke.
BACKGROUND: The benefits of intravenous tissue-plasminogen activator (tPA) in acute ischemic stroke are time-dependent. Emergency medical services (EMS) hospital prenotification of an incoming patient with potential stroke may provide a means of reducing evaluation and treatment times and improving treatment rates; yet, available data are limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 371 988 patients with acute ischemic stroke transported by EMS and enrolled in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2011. Prenotification occurred in 249 197 (67.0%) of EMS-transported patients. Among eligible patients arriving by 2 hours, patients with EMS prenotification were more likely to be treated with tPA within 3 hours (82.8% versus 79.2%, absolute difference +3.5%, P<0.0001, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale-documented cohort; 73.0% versus 64.0%, absolute difference +9.0%, P<0.0001, overall cohort). Patients with EMS prenotification had shorter door-to-imaging times (26 minutes versus 31 minutes, P<0.0001), shorter door-to-needle times (78 minutes versus 80 minutes, P<0.0001), and shorter symptom onset-to-needle times (141 minutes versus 145 minutes, P<0.0001). In multivariable and modified Poisson regression analyses accounting for the clustering of patients within hospitals, use of EMS prenotification was independently associated with greater likelihood of door-to-imaging times ≤25 minutes, door-to-needle times for tPA ≤60 minutes, onset-to-needle times ≤120 minutes, and tPA use within 3 hours. CONCLUSIONS: EMS hospital prenotification is associated with improved evaluation, timelier stroke treatment, and more eligible patients treated with tPA. These results support the need for initiatives targeted at increasing EMS prenotification rates as a mechanism from improving quality of care and outcomes in stroke.
Authors: Jason M Lippman; Sherita N Chapman Smith; Timothy L McMurry; Zachary G Sutton; Brian S Gunnell; Jack Cote; Debra G Perina; David C Cattell-Gordon; Karen S Rheuban; Nina J Solenski; Bradford B Worrall; Andrew M Southerland Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Prasanthi Govindarajan; Benjamin T Friedman; James Q Delgadillo; David Ghilarducci; Lawrence J Cook; Barbara Grimes; Charles E McCulloch; S Claiborne Johnston Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Shreyansh Shah; Marie Luby; Karen Poole; Teresa Morella; Elizabeth Keller; Richard T Benson; John K Lynch; Zurab Nadareishvili; Amie W Hsia Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David Curfman; Lisa Tabor Connor; Hawnwan Philip Moy; Laura Heitsch; Peter Panagos; Jin-Moo Lee; David K Tan; Andria L Ford Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: William J Meurer; Deborah A Levine; Kevin A Kerber; Darin B Zahuranec; James Burke; Jonggyu Baek; Brisa Sánchez; Melinda A Smith; Lewis B Morgenstern; Lynda D Lisabeth Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Sudha Xirasagar; Yuqi Wu; Khosrow Heidari; Jiera Zhou; Meng-Han Tsai; James W Hardin; Robert Wronski; Dana Hurley; Edward C Jauch; Souvik Sen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 5.128