| Literature DB >> 30626404 |
Nicolas Drenck1, Søren Viereck2, Josefine Stokholm Bækgaard2, Karl Bang Christensen3, Freddy Lippert2, Fredrik Folke2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability with effective treatment, including thrombolysis or thrombectomy, being time-critical for favourable outcomes. While door-to-needle time in hospital has been optimized for many years, little is known about the ambulance on-scene time (OST). OST has been reported to account for 44% of total alarm-to-door time, thereby being a major time component. We aimed to analyse ambulance OST in stroke patients eligible for thrombolysis and identify potential areas of time optimization.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebrovascular disease; Emergency medical services; Ischemic stroke; Pre-hospital delay; Pre-hospital stroke management; Stroke; Stroke on-scene time; Thrombolysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30626404 PMCID: PMC6327613 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-018-0580-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Fig. 1Page 1 and page 2 of the registration form used for data collection
Fig. 2Flowchart depicting the reasons for exclusion of registration forms. Patients considered not eligible for evaluation at the stroke center were excluded. However, no reasons for non-eligibility were recorded
Effects of explanatory variables on total on-scene time
| Variable | Group |
| Median time (IQR) | Rate ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECG | Before transport | 326 | 21 (17–27) | 1.00 (−) | – |
| During transport | 86 | 21 (14–28) | 1.00 (0.92–1.08) | 0.92 | |
| At hospital | 20 | 17 (15–20.5) | 0.76 (0.64–0.90) | 0.0015 | |
| First IV access | Before transport | 385 | 21 (17–27) | 1.00 (−) | – |
| During transport | 69 | 17 (13–23) | 0.81 (0.73–0.89) | <.0001 | |
| Not established | 13 | 28 (23–29) | 1.09 (0.91–1.30) | 0.36 | |
| IV access during conference with stroke centre | Yes | 174 | 20 (15–28) | 1.00 (−) | – |
| No | 258 | 21.5 (16–27) | 1.05 (0.98–1.13) | 0.17 | |
| Quality of communication | Good | 337 | 21 (16–26) | 1.00 (−) | – |
| Acceptable/Poor | 95 | 23 (17–29) | 1.10 (1.02–1.18) | 0.014 | |
| Operator | Fire Departmentsa | 67 | 21 (16–28) | 1.05 (0.96–1.15) | 0.31 |
| Falck | 365 | 21 (16–27) | 1.00 (−) | – | |
| Presence of paramedic | Yes | 190 | 21 (16–28) | 0.99 (0.93–1.05) | 0.69 |
| No | 242 | 21 (16–27) | 1.00 (−) | – | |
| Presence of relative | Yes | 159 | 21 (16–27) | 0.98 (0.92–1.05) | 0.65 |
| No | 273 | 21 (16–27) | 1.00 (−) | – | |
| Vomit | Yes | 35 | 25 (20–29) | 1.16 (1.04–1.29) | 0.0099 |
| No | 397 | 21 (16–27) | 1.00 (−) | – | |
| Presence of trainee | Yes | 38 | 20 (16–25) | 0.92 (0.82–1.04) | 0.18 |
| No | 394 | 21 (16–27) | 1.00 (−) | – |
The analyses were adjusted for all variables listed above as well as the timing of second IV access. The analysis of the first IV access was not adjusted for timing of the second IV access. Second IV access is not listed, as no model to isolate the effect of the second IV access could be developed
The number of observations in each group includes only those included in the multivariate analysis (i.e. only those with complete data in all the variables used in the analysis). Thus, all 520 observations were not necessarily used
aFire Departments: Fire Department of Copenhagen and Fire Department of Frederiksberg