Michael Allen1,2, Kerry Pearn1,2, Martin James1,3, Gary A Ford4,5, Phil White6,7, Anthony G Rudd8,9, Peter McMeekin10, Ken Stein1,2. 1. University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. 2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South West Peninsula, UK. 3. Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK. 4. Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. 5. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 6. Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. 7. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. 8. Kings College London, London, UK. 9. Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Both intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and intra-arterial endovascular thrombectomy (ET) improve the outcome of patients with acute ischaemic stroke, with endovascular thrombectomy being an option for those patients with large vessel occlusions. We sought to understand how organisation of services affects time to treatment for both intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy. METHOD: A multi-objective optimisation approach was used to explore the relationship between the number of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy centres and times to treatment. The analysis is based on 238,887 emergency stroke admissions in England over 3 years (2013-2015). RESULTS: Providing hyper-acute care only in comprehensive stroke centres (CSC, providing both intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy, and performing >150 endovascular thrombectomy per year, maximum 40 centres) in England would lead to 15% of patients being more than 45 min away from care, and would create centres with up to 4300 stroke admissions/year. Mixing hyper-acute stroke units (providing intravenous thrombolysis only) with comprehensive stroke centres speeds time to intravenous thrombolysis and mitigates admission numbers to comprehensive stroke centres, but at the expense of increasing time to endovascular thrombectomy. With 24 comprehensive stroke centres and all remaining current acute stroke units as hyper-acute stroke units, redirecting patients directly to attend a comprehensive stroke centre by accepting a small delay (15-min maximum) in intravenous thrombolysis reduces time to endovascular thrombectomy: 25% of all patients would be redirected from hyper-acute stroke units to a comprehensive stroke centre, with an average delay in intravenous thrombolysis of 8 min, and an average improvement in time to endovascular thrombectomy of 80 min. The balance of comprehensive stroke centre:hyper-acute stroke unit admissions would change from 24:76 to 49:51. CONCLUSION: Planning of hyper-acute stroke services is best achieved when considering all forms of acute care and ambulance protocol together. Times to treatment need to be considered alongside manageable and sustainable admission numbers.
PURPOSE: Both intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and intra-arterial endovascular thrombectomy (ET) improve the outcome of patients with acute ischaemic stroke, with endovascular thrombectomy being an option for those patients with large vessel occlusions. We sought to understand how organisation of services affects time to treatment for both intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy. METHOD: A multi-objective optimisation approach was used to explore the relationship between the number of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy centres and times to treatment. The analysis is based on 238,887 emergency stroke admissions in England over 3 years (2013-2015). RESULTS: Providing hyper-acute care only in comprehensive stroke centres (CSC, providing both intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy, and performing >150 endovascular thrombectomy per year, maximum 40 centres) in England would lead to 15% of patients being more than 45 min away from care, and would create centres with up to 4300 stroke admissions/year. Mixing hyper-acute stroke units (providing intravenous thrombolysis only) with comprehensive stroke centres speeds time to intravenous thrombolysis and mitigates admission numbers to comprehensive stroke centres, but at the expense of increasing time to endovascular thrombectomy. With 24 comprehensive stroke centres and all remaining current acute stroke units as hyper-acute stroke units, redirecting patients directly to attend a comprehensive stroke centre by accepting a small delay (15-min maximum) in intravenous thrombolysis reduces time to endovascular thrombectomy: 25% of all patients would be redirected from hyper-acute stroke units to a comprehensive stroke centre, with an average delay in intravenous thrombolysis of 8 min, and an average improvement in time to endovascular thrombectomy of 80 min. The balance of comprehensive stroke centre:hyper-acute stroke unit admissions would change from 24:76 to 49:51. CONCLUSION: Planning of hyper-acute stroke services is best achieved when considering all forms of acute care and ambulance protocol together. Times to treatment need to be considered alongside manageable and sustainable admission numbers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Thrombectomy; health service planning; health services research; stroke
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Mitchell; Andrew M Demchuk; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Maria A de Miquel; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Alain Bonafe; Reza Jahan; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lucie A van den Berg; Elad I Levy; Olvert A Berkhemer; Vitor M Pereira; Jeremy Rempel; Mònica Millán; Stephen M Davis; Daniel Roy; John Thornton; Luis San Román; Marc Ribó; Debbie Beumer; Bruce Stouch; Scott Brown; Bruce C V Campbell; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Wade S Smith; Michael H Lev; Joey D English; Erica C Camargo; Maggie Chou; S Claiborne Johnston; Gilberto Gonzalez; Pamela W Schaefer; William P Dillon; Walter J Koroshetz; Karen L Furie Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Benjamin D Bray; James Campbell; Geoffrey C Cloud; Alex Hoffman; Pippa J Tyrrell; Charles D A Wolfe; Anthony G Rudd Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jonathan Emberson; Kennedy R Lees; Patrick Lyden; Lisa Blackwell; Gregory Albers; Erich Bluhmki; Thomas Brott; Geoff Cohen; Stephen Davis; Geoffrey Donnan; James Grotta; George Howard; Markku Kaste; Masatoshi Koga; Ruediger von Kummer; Maarten Lansberg; Richard I Lindley; Gordon Murray; Jean Marc Olivot; Mark Parsons; Barbara Tilley; Danilo Toni; Kazunori Toyoda; Nils Wahlgren; Joanna Wardlaw; William Whiteley; Gregory J del Zoppo; Colin Baigent; Peter Sandercock; Werner Hacke Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen Morris; Rachael M Hunter; Angus I G Ramsay; Ruth Boaden; Christopher McKevitt; Catherine Perry; Nanik Pursani; Anthony G Rudd; Lee H Schwamm; Simon J Turner; Pippa J Tyrrell; Charles D A Wolfe; Naomi J Fulop Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-08-05
Authors: Keith W Muir; Gary A Ford; Claudia-Martina Messow; Ian Ford; Alicia Murray; Andrew Clifton; Martin M Brown; Jeremy Madigan; Rob Lenthall; Fergus Robertson; Anand Dixit; Geoffrey C Cloud; Joanna Wardlaw; Janet Freeman; Philip White Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Hooman Kamel; Neal S Parikh; Abhinaba Chatterjee; Luke K Kim; Jeffrey L Saver; Lee H Schwamm; Kori S Zachrison; Raul G Nogueira; Opeolu Adeoye; Iván Díaz; Andrew M Ryan; Ankur Pandya; Babak B Navi Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Anne Behrndtz; Richard Beare; Svitlana Iievlieva; Grethe Andersen; Jeppe Mainz; Martin Gude; Henry Ma; Velandai Srikanth; Claus Z Simonsen; Thanh Phan Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Peter McMeekin; Darren Flynn; Mike Allen; Diarmuid Coughlan; Gary A Ford; Hannah Lumley; Joyce S Balami; Martin A James; Ken Stein; David Burgess; Phil White Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Georgia B Black; Angus I G Ramsay; Abigail Baim-Lance; Jeannie Eng; Mariya Melnychuk; Penny Xanthopoulou; Martin M Brown; Stephen Morris; Anthony G Rudd; Robert Simister; Naomi J Fulop Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anne-Claire Peultier; William K Redekop; Michael Allen; Jaime Peters; Omer Faruk Eker; Johan L Severens Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Maarten M H Lahr; Willemijn J Maas; Durk-Jouke van der Zee; Maarten Uyttenboogaart; Erik Buskens Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michael Allen; Kerry Pearn; Gary A Ford; Phil White; Anthony G Rudd; Peter McMeekin; Ken Stein; Martin James Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2021-12-23
Authors: Diarmuid Coughlan; Peter McMeekin; Darren Flynn; Gary A Ford; Hannah Lumley; David Burgess; Joyce Balami; Andrew Mawson; Dawn Craig; Stephen Rice; Phil White Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Edoardo Gaude; Barbara Nogueira; Marcos Ladreda Mochales; Sheila Graham; Sarah Smith; Lisa Shaw; Sara Graziadio; Gonzalo Ladreda Mochales; Philip Sloan; Joshua D Bernstock; Shashank Shekhar; Toby I Gropen; Christopher I Price Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-06-22