BACKGROUND: Because of the limitation of on-site neurology workforce, telestroke was implemented to overcome this barrier. We explored the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) stroke thrombolysis service by telestroke when neurologist was not available on-site. METHODS: From January 2009 to December 2012, we compared patients treated with IV stroke thrombolysis by telestroke in the form of telephone consultation with teleradiology, to patients treated after in-person assessment by the same team of neurologists in a regional hospital. Door-to-needle time, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and functional outcome at 3 months were prospectively collected and compared between the groups. RESULTS: In all, 152 patients were treated with IV thrombolysis; 102 patients were treated with neurologist on-site; whereas 50 patients were treated by internists with telestroke. Fifty-two percent of the telemedical group achieved excellent outcome compared to 43% of the neurologist on-site group (P = .30). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate (4.0% versus 4.9%, P = 1.0) and mortality (8.3% versus 11.9%, P = .49) were comparable. Using the multiple logistic regression analysis, age, baseline stroke severity, and extent of early ischemic change on brain computed tomography scan, are independent predictors for excellent outcome, whereas the presence of neurologist on-site is not correlated with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated without neurologist on-site achieved similar outcome. Telephone consultation and teleradiology-guided IV stroke thrombolysis, with the support of on-site internist appeared safe and efficacious.
BACKGROUND: Because of the limitation of on-site neurology workforce, telestroke was implemented to overcome this barrier. We explored the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) stroke thrombolysis service by telestroke when neurologist was not available on-site. METHODS: From January 2009 to December 2012, we compared patients treated with IV stroke thrombolysis by telestroke in the form of telephone consultation with teleradiology, to patients treated after in-person assessment by the same team of neurologists in a regional hospital. Door-to-needle time, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and functional outcome at 3 months were prospectively collected and compared between the groups. RESULTS: In all, 152 patients were treated with IV thrombolysis; 102 patients were treated with neurologist on-site; whereas 50 patients were treated by internists with telestroke. Fifty-two percent of the telemedical group achieved excellent outcome compared to 43% of the neurologist on-site group (P = .30). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate (4.0% versus 4.9%, P = 1.0) and mortality (8.3% versus 11.9%, P = .49) were comparable. Using the multiple logistic regression analysis, age, baseline stroke severity, and extent of early ischemic change on brain computed tomography scan, are independent predictors for excellent outcome, whereas the presence of neurologist on-site is not correlated with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS:Patients treated without neurologist on-site achieved similar outcome. Telephone consultation and teleradiology-guided IV stroke thrombolysis, with the support of on-site internist appeared safe and efficacious.
Authors: Maren Ranhoff Hov; Erik Zakariassen; Thomas Lindner; Terje Nome; Kristi G Bache; Jo Røislien; Jostein Gleditsch; Volker Solyga; David Russell; Christian G Lund Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 2.486