Importance: Transferring patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to hospitals not providing interventional treatment options is an unresolved medical problem. Objective: To determine how optimized prehospital management (OPM) based on use of the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS) compares with management in a Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) in accurately triaging patients to the appropriate hospital with (comprehensive stroke center [CSC]) or without (primary stroke center [PSC]) interventional treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized multicenter trial with 3-month follow-up, patients were assigned week-wise to one of the pathways between June 15, 2015, and November 15, 2017, in 2 regions of Saarland, Germany; 708 of 824 suspected stroke patients did not meet inclusion criteria, resulting in a study population of 116 adult patients. Interventions: Patients received either OPM based on a standard operating procedure that included the use of the LAMS (cut point ≥4) or management in an MSU (an ambulance with vascular imaging, point-of-care laboratory, and telecommunication capabilities). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients accurately triaged to either CSCs (LVO, ICH) or PSCs (others). Results: A predefined interim analysis was performed after 116 patients of the planned 232 patients had been enrolled. Of these, 53 were included in the OPM group (67.9% women; mean [SD] age, 74 [11] years) and 63 in the MSU group (57.1% women; mean [SD] age, 75 [11] years). The primary end point, an accurate triage decision, was reached for 37 of 53 patients (69.8%) in the OPM group and for 63 of 63 patients (100%) in the MSU group (difference, 30.2%; 95% CI, 17.8%-42.5%; P < .001). Whereas 7 of 17 OPM patients (41.2%) with LVO or ICH required secondary transfers from a PSC to a CSC, none of the 11 MSU patients (0%) required such transfers (difference, 41.2%; 95% CI, 17.8%-64.6%; P = .02). The LAMS at a cut point of 4 or higher led to an accurate diagnosis of LVO or ICH for 13 of 17 patients (76.5%; 6 triaged to a CSC) and of LVO selectively for 7 of 9 patients (77.8%; 2 triaged to a CSC). Stroke management metrics were better in the MSU group, although patient outcomes were not significantly different. Conclusions and Relevance: Whereas prehospital management optimized by LAMS allows accurate triage decisions for approximately 70% of patients, MSU-based management enables accurate triage decisions for 100%. Depending on the specific health care environment considered, both approaches are potentially valuable in triaging stroke patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02465346.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Transferring patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to hospitals not providing interventional treatment options is an unresolved medical problem. Objective: To determine how optimized prehospital management (OPM) based on use of the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS) compares with management in a Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) in accurately triaging patients to the appropriate hospital with (comprehensive stroke center [CSC]) or without (primary stroke center [PSC]) interventional treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized multicenter trial with 3-month follow-up, patients were assigned week-wise to one of the pathways between June 15, 2015, and November 15, 2017, in 2 regions of Saarland, Germany; 708 of 824 suspected strokepatients did not meet inclusion criteria, resulting in a study population of 116 adult patients. Interventions: Patients received either OPM based on a standard operating procedure that included the use of the LAMS (cut point ≥4) or management in an MSU (an ambulance with vascular imaging, point-of-care laboratory, and telecommunication capabilities). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients accurately triaged to either CSCs (LVO, ICH) or PSCs (others). Results: A predefined interim analysis was performed after 116 patients of the planned 232 patients had been enrolled. Of these, 53 were included in the OPM group (67.9% women; mean [SD] age, 74 [11] years) and 63 in the MSU group (57.1% women; mean [SD] age, 75 [11] years). The primary end point, an accurate triage decision, was reached for 37 of 53 patients (69.8%) in the OPM group and for 63 of 63 patients (100%) in the MSU group (difference, 30.2%; 95% CI, 17.8%-42.5%; P < .001). Whereas 7 of 17 OPMpatients (41.2%) with LVO or ICH required secondary transfers from a PSC to a CSC, none of the 11 MSUpatients (0%) required such transfers (difference, 41.2%; 95% CI, 17.8%-64.6%; P = .02). The LAMS at a cut point of 4 or higher led to an accurate diagnosis of LVO or ICH for 13 of 17 patients (76.5%; 6 triaged to a CSC) and of LVO selectively for 7 of 9 patients (77.8%; 2 triaged to a CSC). Stroke management metrics were better in the MSU group, although patient outcomes were not significantly different. Conclusions and Relevance: Whereas prehospital management optimized by LAMS allows accurate triage decisions for approximately 70% of patients, MSU-based management enables accurate triage decisions for 100%. Depending on the specific health care environment considered, both approaches are potentially valuable in triaging strokepatients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02465346.
Authors: Martin Ebinger; Bob Siegerink; Alexander Kunz; Matthias Wendt; Joachim E Weber; Eugen Schwabauer; Frederik Geisler; Erik Freitag; Julia Lange; Janina Behrens; Hebun Erdur; Ramanan Ganeshan; Thomas Liman; Jan F Scheitz; Ludwig Schlemm; Peter Harmel; Katja Zieschang; Irina Lorenz-Meyer; Ira Napierkowski; Carolin Waldschmidt; Christian H Nolte; Ulrike Grittner; Edzard Wiener; Georg Bohner; Darius G Nabavi; Ingo Schmehl; Axel Ekkernkamp; Gerhard J Jungehulsing; Bruno-Marcel Mackert; Andreas Hartmann; Jessica L Rohmann; Matthias Endres; Heinrich J Audebert Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael V Mazya; Annika Berglund; Niaz Ahmed; Mia von Euler; Staffan Holmin; Ann-Charlotte Laska; Jan M Mathé; Christina Sjöstrand; Einar E Eriksson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Praveen Hariharan; Muhammad Bilal Tariq; James C Grotta; Alexandra L Czap Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Laura C C van Meenen; Adrien E Groot; Esmee Venema; Bart J Emmer; Martin D Smeekes; Geert Jan Kommer; Charles B L M Majoie; Yvo B W E M Roos; Wouter J Schonewille; Bob Roozenbeek; Jonathan M Coutinho Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 4.849