Michael J Lyerly1, Karen C Albright1, Amelia K Boehme1, Reza Bavarsad Shahripour1, John P Donnelly1, James T Houston1, Pawan V Rawal1, Niren Kapoor1, Muhammad Alvi1, April Sisson1, Anne W Alexandrov1, Andrei V Alexandrov1. 1. From the Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, and the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, the Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, the Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Section on Stroke Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Bethesda, Maryland, and the Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Tennessee, Memphis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The drip and ship model is a method used to deliver thrombolysis to acute stroke patients in facilities lacking onsite neurology coverage. We sought to determine whether our drip and ship population differs from patients treated directly at our stroke center (direct presenters). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who received thrombolysis at an outside facility with subsequent transfer to our center between 2009 and 2011. Patients received thrombolysis after telephone consultation with a stroke specialist. We examined demographics, vascular risk factors, laboratory values, and stroke severity in drip and ship patients compared with direct presenters. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were identified who received thrombolysis by drip and ship compared with 212 direct presenters. The two groups did not differ with respect to sex, ethnicity, vascular risk factors, or admission glucose. The odds ratio (OR) of arriving at our hospital as a drip and ship for someone 80 years or older was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.61, P < 0.001). Only 21% of drip and ship patients were black versus 38% of direct presenters (OR 0.434, 95% CI 0.25-0.76, P = 0.004). Even after stratifying by age (<80 vs ≥80), a smaller proportion of drip and ship patients were black (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24-0.81, P = 0.008). Furthermore, we found that fewer black patients with severe strokes arrived by drip and ship (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-0.98, P = 0.0028). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that a smaller proportion of blacks and older adults arrived at our center by the drip and ship model. This may reflect differences in how patients are selected for thrombolysis and transfer to a higher level of care.
OBJECTIVES: The drip and ship model is a method used to deliver thrombolysis to acute strokepatients in facilities lacking onsite neurology coverage. We sought to determine whether our drip and ship population differs from patients treated directly at our stroke center (direct presenters). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who received thrombolysis at an outside facility with subsequent transfer to our center between 2009 and 2011. Patients received thrombolysis after telephone consultation with a stroke specialist. We examined demographics, vascular risk factors, laboratory values, and stroke severity in drip and shippatients compared with direct presenters. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were identified who received thrombolysis by drip and ship compared with 212 direct presenters. The two groups did not differ with respect to sex, ethnicity, vascular risk factors, or admission glucose. The odds ratio (OR) of arriving at our hospital as a drip and ship for someone 80 years or older was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.61, P < 0.001). Only 21% of drip and shippatients were black versus 38% of direct presenters (OR 0.434, 95% CI 0.25-0.76, P = 0.004). Even after stratifying by age (<80 vs ≥80), a smaller proportion of drip and shippatients were black (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24-0.81, P = 0.008). Furthermore, we found that fewer black patients with severe strokes arrived by drip and ship (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-0.98, P = 0.0028). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that a smaller proportion of blacks and older adults arrived at our center by the drip and ship model. This may reflect differences in how patients are selected for thrombolysis and transfer to a higher level of care.
Authors: Robert Adams; Joe Acker; Mark Alberts; Liz Andrews; Richard Atkinson; Kathy Fenelon; Anthony Furlan; Meighan Girgus; Katie Horton; Richard Hughes; Walter Koroshetz; Richard Latchaw; Ellen Magnis; Marc Mayberg; Arthur Pancioli; Rose Marie Robertson; Tim Shephard; Rene Smith; Sidney C Smith; Suzanne Smith; Steven K Stranne; Edgar J Kenton; Gil Bashe; Altagracia Chavez; Larry Goldstein; Richard Hodosh; Cindy Keitel; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Anne Leonard; Lewis Morgenstern; Jack Owen Wood Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Opeolu Adeoye; Mary Haverbusch; Daniel Woo; Padmini Sekar; Charles J Moomaw; Dawn Kleindorfer; Brian Stettler; Brett M Kissela; Joseph P Broderick; Matthew L Flaherty Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Sheryl Martin-Schild; Miriam M Morales; Aslam M Khaja; Andrew D Barreto; Hen Hallevi; Anitha Abraham; M Rick Sline; Elizabeth Jones; James C Grotta; Sean I Savitz Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Leslie A McClure; George Howard; Libby Wagner; Leavonne Pulley; Camilo R Gomez Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 10.422