A P Kansagra1,2,3, G C Meyers4, M S Kruzich4, D T Cross5,2, C J Moran5,2. 1. From the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (A.P.K., D.T.C., C.J.M.) apkansagra@gmail.com. 2. Departments of Neurosurgery (A.P.K., D.T.C., C.J.M.). 3. Neurology (A.P.K.), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Barnes-Jewish Hospital (G.C.M., M.S.K.), St. Louis, Missouri. 5. From the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (A.P.K., D.T.C., C.J.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion depend on the speed and quality of workflows leading to mechanical thrombectomy. In the absence of universally accepted best practices for workflow, developing stroke hospitals can benefit from improved awareness of real-world workflows in effect at experienced centers. To this end, we surveyed prethrombectomy workflow practices at stroke centers throughout the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: E-mail and phone interviews were conducted with neurointerventional team members at 30 experienced, endovascular-capable stroke centers. Questions were chosen to reflect workflow components of triage, team activation, transport, case setup, and anesthesia. RESULTS: There is wide variation in prethrombectomy workflows. At 53% of institutions, nonphysician staff respond to stroke alerts alongside physicians. Imaging triage involves noninvasive angiography or perfusion imaging at 97% and 63% of institutions, respectively. Neurointerventional consultation is initiated before the completion of neuroimaging at 86% of institutions, and the team is activated before a final treatment decision at 59%. The neurointerventional team most commonly arrives within 30 minutes. Patients may be transported to the neuroangiography suite before team arrival at 43% of institutions. Procedural trays are set up in advance of team arrival at 13% of centers; additional thrombectomy devices are centrally stored at 54%. A power injector for angiographic runs is consistently used at 43% of institutions. Anesthesiology routinely supports thrombectomies at 67% of institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Prethrombectomy workflows vary widely between experienced centers. Improved awareness of real-world workflows and their variations may help to guide institutions in designing their own protocols of care.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion depend on the speed and quality of workflows leading to mechanical thrombectomy. In the absence of universally accepted best practices for workflow, developing stroke hospitals can benefit from improved awareness of real-world workflows in effect at experienced centers. To this end, we surveyed prethrombectomy workflow practices at stroke centers throughout the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: E-mail and phone interviews were conducted with neurointerventional team members at 30 experienced, endovascular-capable stroke centers. Questions were chosen to reflect workflow components of triage, team activation, transport, case setup, and anesthesia. RESULTS: There is wide variation in prethrombectomy workflows. At 53% of institutions, nonphysician staff respond to stroke alerts alongside physicians. Imaging triage involves noninvasive angiography or perfusion imaging at 97% and 63% of institutions, respectively. Neurointerventional consultation is initiated before the completion of neuroimaging at 86% of institutions, and the team is activated before a final treatment decision at 59%. The neurointerventional team most commonly arrives within 30 minutes. Patients may be transported to the neuroangiography suite before team arrival at 43% of institutions. Procedural trays are set up in advance of team arrival at 13% of centers; additional thrombectomy devices are centrally stored at 54%. A power injector for angiographic runs is consistently used at 43% of institutions. Anesthesiology routinely supports thrombectomies at 67% of institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Prethrombectomy workflows vary widely between experienced centers. Improved awareness of real-world workflows and their variations may help to guide institutions in designing their own protocols of care.
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olvert A Berkhemer; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Lucie A van den Berg; Hester F Lingsma; Albert J Yoo; Wouter J Schonewille; Jan Albert Vos; Paul J Nederkoorn; Marieke J H Wermer; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Julie Staals; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Jacques A van Oostayen; Geert J Lycklama à Nijeholt; Jelis Boiten; Patrick A Brouwer; Bart J Emmer; Sebastiaan F de Bruijn; Lukas C van Dijk; L Jaap Kappelle; Rob H Lo; Ewoud J van Dijk; Joost de Vries; Paul L M de Kort; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Jan S P van den Berg; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Leo A M Aerden; René J Dallinga; Marieke C Visser; Joseph C J Bot; Patrick C Vroomen; Omid Eshghi; Tobien H C M L Schreuder; Roel J J Heijboer; Koos Keizer; Alexander V Tielbeek; Heleen M den Hertog; Dick G Gerrits; Renske M van den Berg-Vos; Giorgos B Karas; Ewout W Steyerberg; H Zwenneke Flach; Henk A Marquering; Marieke E S Sprengers; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Ludo F M Beenen; René van den Berg; Peter J Koudstaal; Wim H van Zwam; Yvo B W E M Roos; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Charles B L M Majoie; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey Gornbein; Jeffry R Alger; Val Nenov; Zahra Ajani; Lei Feng; Brett C Meyer; Scott Olson; Lee H Schwamm; Albert J Yoo; Randolph S Marshall; Philip M Meyers; Dileep R Yavagal; Max Wintermark; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amin Aghaebrahim; Christopher Streib; Srikant Rangaraju; Cynthia L Kenmuir; Dan-Victor Giurgiutiu; Anat Horev; Yumna Saeed; Clifton W Callaway; Francis X Guyette; Chris Martin-Gill; Charissa Pacella; Andrew F Ducruet; Brian T Jankowitz; Tudor G Jovin; Ashutosh P Jadhav Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Brijesh P Mehta; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Ronil V Chandra; Donnie L Bell; Chung-Huan J Sun; Joshua A Hirsch; James D Rabinov; Natalia S Rost; Lee H Schwamm; Joshua N Goldstein; Wilton C Levine; Rishi Gupta; Albert J Yoo Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: David C Lauzier; Maria M Galardi; Kristin P Guilliams; Manu S Goyal; Catherine Amlie-Lefond; Danial K Hallam; Akash P Kansagra Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 7.914