Silke Walter1,2,3, Iris Q Grunwald2,4, Stefan A Helwig1, Andreas Ragoschke-Schumm1, Michael Kettner5, Mathias Fousse1, Martin Lesmeister1, Klaus Fassbender6. 1. Department of Neurology, Saarland University, Kirrbergerstrasse 1, 66421, Homburg, Germany. 2. Neurocience Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK. 3. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Radiology Department, Southend University Hospital NHS Trust, Prittlewell, Essex, UK. 5. Department of Neuroradiology, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg, Germany. 6. Department of Neurology, Saarland University, Kirrbergerstrasse 1, 66421, Homburg, Germany. Klaus.Fassbender@uks.eu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute stroke is a treatable disease. Nevertheless, only a minority of patients obtain guideline-adjusted therapy. One major reason is the small time window in which therapies have to be administered in order to reverse or mitigate brain injury and prevent disability. The Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) concept, available for a decade now, is spreading worldwide, comprising ambulances, fully equipped with computed tomography, laboratory unit and telemedicine connection to the stroke centre and staffed with a specialised stroke team. Besides its benefits, this concept adds a relevant amount of costs to health services. RECENT FINDINGS: The feasibility of the MSU and its impact on reducing treatment times have been proven by several research trials. In addition, pre-hospital stroke diagnosis including computed tomographic angiography analysis facilitates correct triage of patients, needing mechanical recanalization, thereby reducing the number of secondary or inter-hospital transfers. Even so, the concept is not yet fully implemented on a broad scale. One reason is the still open question of cost-effectiveness. There are assumptions based on the randomised trials of MSUs hinting towards an acceptable amount of money per quality-adjusted life years and overall cost-effectiveness. Up to now, neither a prospective analysis nor a consideration of secondary transfer avoidance is available. The MSU concept is an innovative and impactful strategy to improve stroke management, especially in times of constraints in healthcare economics and health care professionals. Prospective information is needed to answer the cost-effectiveness question satisfactorily.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute stroke is a treatable disease. Nevertheless, only a minority of patients obtain guideline-adjusted therapy. One major reason is the small time window in which therapies have to be administered in order to reverse or mitigate brain injury and prevent disability. The Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) concept, available for a decade now, is spreading worldwide, comprising ambulances, fully equipped with computed tomography, laboratory unit and telemedicine connection to the stroke centre and staffed with a specialised stroke team. Besides its benefits, this concept adds a relevant amount of costs to health services. RECENT FINDINGS: The feasibility of the MSU and its impact on reducing treatment times have been proven by several research trials. In addition, pre-hospital stroke diagnosis including computed tomographic angiography analysis facilitates correct triage of patients, needing mechanical recanalization, thereby reducing the number of secondary or inter-hospital transfers. Even so, the concept is not yet fully implemented on a broad scale. One reason is the still open question of cost-effectiveness. There are assumptions based on the randomised trials of MSUs hinting towards an acceptable amount of money per quality-adjusted life years and overall cost-effectiveness. Up to now, neither a prospective analysis nor a consideration of secondary transfer avoidance is available. The MSU concept is an innovative and impactful strategy to improve stroke management, especially in times of constraints in healthcare economics and health care professionals. Prospective information is needed to answer the cost-effectiveness question satisfactorily.
Authors: Jose-Miguel Yamal; Suja S Rajan; Stephanie A Parker; Asha P Jacob; Michael O Gonzalez; Nicole R Gonzales; Ritvij Bowry; Andrew D Barreto; Tzu-Ching Wu; David R Lairson; David Persse; Barbara C Tilley; David Chiu; Jose I Suarez; William J Jones; Andrei Alexandrov; James C Grotta Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Russell Cerejo; Seby John; Andrew B Buletko; Ather Taqui; Ahmed Itrat; Natalie Organek; Sung-Min Cho; Lila Sheikhi; Ken Uchino; Farren Briggs; Andrew P Reimer; Stacey Winners; Gabor Toth; Peter Rasmussen; Muhammad S Hussain Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Joao A Gomes; Christine L Ahrens; Muhammad Shazam Hussain; Stacey Winners; Peter A Rasmussen; Ken Uchino Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Heinrich Audebert; Klaus Fassbender; M Shazam Hussain; Martin Ebinger; Guillaume Turc; Ken Uchino; Stephen Davis; Anne Alexandrov; James Grotta Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: J Claude Hemphill; Steven M Greenberg; Craig S Anderson; Kyra Becker; Bernard R Bendok; Mary Cushman; Gordon L Fung; Joshua N Goldstein; R Loch Macdonald; Pamela H Mitchell; Phillip A Scott; Magdy H Selim; Daniel Woo Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M R Hov; T Nome; E Zakariassen; D Russell; J Røislien; H M Lossius; C G Lund Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Elizabeth Parody-Rua; Alejandro Bustamante; Joan Montaner; Maria Rubio-Valera; David Serrano; Soledad Pérez-Sánchez; Alba Sánchez-Viñas; César Guevara-Cuellar; Antoni Serrano-Blanco Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2022-07-27
Authors: Frederik Geisler; Medschid Wesirow; Martin Ebinger; Alexander Kunz; Michal Rozanski; Carolin Waldschmidt; Joachim E Weber; Matthias Wendt; Benjamin Winter; Heinrich J Audebert Journal: Neurol Res Pract Date: 2021-01-06