Penelope van Veenendaal1, Bernard Yan1,2, Leonid Churilov3, Richard Dowling1, Steven Bush1, Peter Mitchell4. 1. Department of Radiology, Neurointervention Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Radiology, Neurointervention Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiapeter.mitchell@mh.org.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular clot retrieval (ECR) improves outcomes for acute ischaemic stroke with large artery occlusion. However, the provision of ECR requires resource-intensive comprehensive stroke centres (CSC), which are impractical to establish in regional hospitals. An alternative is a "hub-and-spoke" model, whereby ischaemic strokes are triaged at the regional primary centres and where eligible, transferred to a CSC. We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients directly admitted to a CSC with patients treated in the "hub-and-spoke" model. We hypothesize that there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 systems. METHODS: We included patients undergoing ECR at a CSC. Patients were categorised into 2 groups; the first group included patients directly admitted to the CSC and the second group included patients in the "hub-and-spoke" model. Good clinical outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale 0-2 and the difference between the 2 groups was tested by logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 178 patients, 50 (28%) presented directly to CSC and 128 (72%) were transferred from a referring hospital. The median age was 70 (interquartile range 58-77) and 61% were male. Thrombolysis in ischaemic cerebral-infarction 2b/3 recanalisation was achieved in 79% of patients. Of the direct group, 63% (95% CI 48-77%) achieved good clinical outcomes compared to 52% (95% CI 43-61%) in the "hub-and-spoke" group (p = 0.233). CONCLUSION: This state-wide service model demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes to that described in clinical trials. We found no significant difference in outcome between patients directly admitted to CSC and those with "hub-and-spoke" service delivery.
BACKGROUND: Endovascular clot retrieval (ECR) improves outcomes for acute ischaemic stroke with large artery occlusion. However, the provision of ECR requires resource-intensive comprehensive stroke centres (CSC), which are impractical to establish in regional hospitals. An alternative is a "hub-and-spoke" model, whereby ischaemic strokes are triaged at the regional primary centres and where eligible, transferred to a CSC. We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients directly admitted to a CSC with patients treated in the "hub-and-spoke" model. We hypothesize that there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 systems. METHODS: We included patients undergoing ECR at a CSC. Patients were categorised into 2 groups; the first group included patients directly admitted to the CSC and the second group included patients in the "hub-and-spoke" model. Good clinical outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale 0-2 and the difference between the 2 groups was tested by logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 178 patients, 50 (28%) presented directly to CSC and 128 (72%) were transferred from a referring hospital. The median age was 70 (interquartile range 58-77) and 61% were male. Thrombolysis in ischaemic cerebral-infarction 2b/3 recanalisation was achieved in 79% of patients. Of the direct group, 63% (95% CI 48-77%) achieved good clinical outcomes compared to 52% (95% CI 43-61%) in the "hub-and-spoke" group (p = 0.233). CONCLUSION: This state-wide service model demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes to that described in clinical trials. We found no significant difference in outcome between patients directly admitted to CSC and those with "hub-and-spoke" service delivery.
Authors: Leon Stephen Edwards; Christopher Blair; Dennis Cordato; Alan McDougall; Nathan Manning; Andrew Cheung; Jason Wenderoth; Cecilia Cappelen-Smith Journal: BMJ Neurol Open Date: 2020-04-05