Literature DB >> 28612680

Benefits of stroke treatment delivered using a mobile stroke unit trial.

Jose-Miguel Yamal1, Suja S Rajan2, Stephanie A Parker3, Asha P Jacob1, Michael O Gonzalez1, Nicole R Gonzales3, Ritvij Bowry3, Andrew D Barreto3, Tzu-Ching Wu3, David R Lairson2, David Persse4, Barbara C Tilley1, David Chiu5, Jose I Suarez6, William J Jones7, Andrei Alexandrov8, James C Grotta9.   

Abstract

Rationale Mobile stroke units speed treatment for acute ischemic stroke, thereby possibly improving outcomes. Aim To compare mobile stroke unit and standard management clinical outcomes, healthcare utilization, and cost-effectiveness in tissue plasminogen activator-eligible acute ischemic stroke patients calling 911. Sample size 693. Eighty percent power with 0.05 type I error rate to detect a difference of 0.09 in mean utility-weighted modified Rankin scale between groups. Design Phase III, multicenter, prospective cluster-randomized (mobile stroke unit versus standard management weeks) comparative effectiveness study in tissue plasminogen activator-eligible patients. Outcomes Primary: Ninety-day mean utility-weighted modified Rankin scale. Coprimary: cost-effectiveness based on EQ5D quality of life and one year poststroke costs. Analysis Two-sample t-test and linear regression adjusting for covariates; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net benefit regression. Results As of March 2017, 288 tissue plasminogen activator-eligible patients have been enrolled (173 in the mobile stroke unit arm and 115 in the standard management arm). Two new centers start in early 2017 with target end of recruitment September 2019. Conclusion This is the first randomized study to test for disability, healthcare utilization, and cost-effectiveness of a mobile stroke unit. The progress of the study suggests that it is feasible. Management of tissue plasminogen activator eligible acute ischemic stroke patients by a mobile stroke unit could potentially result in less disability and healthcare utilization, and be cost effective. Mobile stroke units are very costly. This trial may determine if the fixed cost can be justified by a reduction in disability and healthcare utilization. Clinical Trial Registration NCT02190500.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute stroke; Emergency Medical Services; ambulance; phase III clinical trial; prehospital; thrombolysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28612680     DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711950

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Stroke        ISSN: 1747-4930            Impact factor:   5.266


  15 in total

Review 1.  In response to Mobile Stroke Units - Cost-Effective or Just an Expensive Hype?

Authors:  D A Cadilhac; S S Rajan; J Kim
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 5.113

Review 2.  Mobile Stroke Units: Bringing Treatment to the Patient.

Authors:  Mikel S Ehntholt; Melvin Parasram; Saad A Mir; Mackenzie P Lerario
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 3.598

3.  Emergency Department Door-to-Puncture Time Since 2014.

Authors:  Alexandra L Czap; James C Grotta; Stephanie A Parker; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Ritvij Bowry; Sunil A Sheth; Suja S Rajan; Hyunsoo Hwang; Noopur Singh; Patti Bratina; Tomas Bryndziar; Andrei V Alexandrov; Anne W Alexandrov; Wendy Dusenbury; Victoria Swatzell; William Jones; Kimberly Ackerson; Brandi Schimpf; Patrick Wright; Amanda L Jagolino-Cole
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 7.914

4.  Association Between Dispatch of Mobile Stroke Units and Functional Outcomes Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke in Berlin.

Authors:  Martin Ebinger; Bob Siegerink; Alexander Kunz; Matthias Wendt; Joachim E Weber; Eugen Schwabauer; Frederik Geisler; Erik Freitag; Julia Lange; Janina Behrens; Hebun Erdur; Ramanan Ganeshan; Thomas Liman; Jan F Scheitz; Ludwig Schlemm; Peter Harmel; Katja Zieschang; Irina Lorenz-Meyer; Ira Napierkowski; Carolin Waldschmidt; Christian H Nolte; Ulrike Grittner; Edzard Wiener; Georg Bohner; Darius G Nabavi; Ingo Schmehl; Axel Ekkernkamp; Gerhard J Jungehulsing; Bruno-Marcel Mackert; Andreas Hartmann; Jessica L Rohmann; Matthias Endres; Heinrich J Audebert
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Implementation of a Prehospital Stroke Triage System Using Symptom Severity and Teleconsultation in the Stockholm Stroke Triage Study.

Authors:  Michael V Mazya; Annika Berglund; Niaz Ahmed; Mia von Euler; Staffan Holmin; Ann-Charlotte Laska; Jan M Mathé; Christina Sjöstrand; Einar E Eriksson
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 18.302

Review 6.  Mobile Stroke Units - Cost-Effective or Just an Expensive Hype?

Authors:  Silke Walter; Iris Q Grunwald; Stefan A Helwig; Andreas Ragoschke-Schumm; Michael Kettner; Mathias Fousse; Martin Lesmeister; Klaus Fassbender
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 5.113

Review 7.  Mobile Stroke Units: Current Evidence and Impact.

Authors:  Praveen Hariharan; Muhammad Bilal Tariq; James C Grotta; Alexandra L Czap
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 5.081

8.  Mobile Stroke Unit Computed Tomography Angiography Substantially Shortens Door-to-Puncture Time.

Authors:  Alexandra L Czap; Noopur Singh; Ritvij Bowry; Amanda Jagolino-Cole; Stephanie A Parker; Kenny Phan; Mengxi Wang; Sunil A Sheth; Suja S Rajan; Jose-Miguel Yamal; James C Grotta
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 7.914

9.  Factors delaying intravenous thrombolytic therapy in acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Angelos Sharobeam; Brett Jones; Dianne Walton-Sonda; Christian J Lueck
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2020-03-21       Impact factor: 4.849

10.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to increase stroke thrombolysis.

Authors:  Mollie McDermott; Lesli E Skolarus; James F Burke
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2019-05-03       Impact factor: 2.474

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.