| Literature DB >> 31835763 |
Marios-Nikos Psychogios1,2, Ilko L Maier3, Ioannis Tsogkas1, Amélie Carolina Hesse1, Alex Brehm1,2, Daniel Behme1, Marlena Schnieder3, Katharina Schregel1, Ismini Papageorgiou4, David S Liebeskind5, Mayank Goyal6, Mathias Bähr3, Michael Knauth1, Jan Liman3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: cerebral angiography; cone-beam computed tomography; hemorrhage; stroke; thrombectomy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31835763 PMCID: PMC6947228 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8122185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Clinical, angiographic, and procedural details of the 100 one-stop-management patients.
| All, | LVO, | SVO, | ICH, | Todd’s, | RLVO, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (IQR) | 78 (69–84) | 77 (68–84) | 79 (71–87) | 78 (75–83) | 79 (73–82) | 81 (77–86) |
| Admission NIHSS | 15 (12–19) | 16 (13–19) | 13 (11–15) | 15 (10–17) | 12 (11–15) | 13 (11–13) |
| Female | 123 (54%) | 90 (54%) | 12 (48%) | 12 (50%) | 5 (46%) | 4 (100%) |
| IV–rtPA | 144 (63%) | 112 (68%) | 23 (92%) | 1 | 4 (36%) | 4 (100%) |
| Hemorrhage on initial FDCT | 25 (11%) | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) | 24 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Occlusion site | ||||||
| ICA-T | 41 (25%) | |||||
| M1 | 88 (53%) | |||||
| M2 | 15 (9%) | |||||
| Other | 22 (13%) | |||||
| Tandem occlusion | 34 (21%) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Symptom to door | 130 (70–195; 253) | 154 (67–205; 264) | 82 (66–134; 205) | 105 (69–129; 204) | 131(95–146; 186) | 229 (181–259) |
| Door to FDCT | 15 (10–20; 26) | 14 (9–19; 25) | 16 (12–24; 32) | 17 (14–22; 30) | 21 (13–23; 31) | 16 (14–16) |
| Door to IV–rtPA | 22 (20–30; 41) | 22 (20–29; 38) | 26 (20–45; 53) | |||
| Door to treatment startα | 21 (18–33; 34) | 27 (19–32; 37) | ||||
| Door to groin | 29 (22–39; 50) | |||||
| Groin to reperfusion | 40 (28–60; 80) | |||||
| FDCT to reperfusion | 59 (45–82; 101) | |||||
| Door to reperfusion | 72 (58–91; 117) | |||||
| Door to reperfusion M1 | 64 (56–87; 102) | |||||
| extCT to FDCT | 124 (110–155; 218) | |||||
| Direct admission | 127 (55%) | 74 (45%) | 19 (76%) | 23 (96%) | 11 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
| Working hoursβ | 95 (41%) | 68 (41%) | 13 (52%) | 11 (46%) | 2 (18%) | 1 (25%) |
| Reperfusion, mTICI2b-3 | 142 (86%) | |||||
| Any hemorrhage on FU | 49 (21%) | 25 (15%) | 0 (0%) | 24 (100%) | 0 (0%) | |
| PH-2 hematoma on FU | 2 (1%) | |||||
| sICH | 6 (4%) | |||||
| Discharge NIHSS | 5 (2–10) | 5 (2–12) | 7 (4–10) | 5 (1–9) | 4 (1–6) | 6 (4–7) |
| Discharge mRS | 4 (1–5) | 4 (1–5) | 4 (2–5) | 2 (2–6) | 3 (1–4) | 3 (3–4) |
| Mortality | 45/230 (20%) | 36 (22%) | 2 (8%) | 5 (30%) | 2 (18%) | 0 (0%) |
| 90 d mRS | 4 (1–6) | |||||
| 90 d favorable outcome | 54/147 (37%) |
LVO, large vessel occlusion; SVO, small vessel occlusion; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; RLVO, recanalized LVO during transfer; IQR, interquartile range, NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; IV-rtPA, intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator; FDCT, flat-detector CT; extCT, external CT in primary stroke center; mTICI, modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score; FU, follow-up; mRS, modified Rankin scale; α, intravenous injection of antihypertensive drugs in case of ICB or sedative drugs in case of seizures; β, weekdays 08:00 to 17:00.
Procedural details of one-stop-management patients with large vessel occlusion.
| Direct Admission | Min (IQR; 90th Percentile) |
|---|---|
| Door to FDCT | 15 (12–20; 24) |
| Door to IV–rtPA | 22 (20–29; 38) |
| Door to groin | 34 (28–45; 51) |
| Groin to reperfusion | 41 (26–55; 73) |
| FDCT to reperfusion | 61 (47–81; 93) |
| Door to reperfusion | 76 (61–92; 116) |
| Door to reperfusion of M1 | 68 (58–89; 101) |
| Occluded vessel | ICA-T 13 (18%), M1 42 (58%), M2 9 (12%) |
| Tandem occlusions | 15 (20%) |
|
| |
| extCT to FDCT | 124 (110–155; 218) |
| Door to FDCT | 10 (8–17; 25) |
| Door to groin | 25 (19–33; 41) |
| Groin to reperfusion | 38 (29–65; 87) |
| FDCT to reperfusion | 56 (44–86; 110) |
| Door to reperfusion | 68 (53–90; 126) |
| Door to reperfusion of M1 | 59 (52–84; 118) |
| Occluded vessel | ICA-T 28 (30%), M1 46 (50%), M2 6 (7%) |
| Tandem occlusions | 19 (20%) |
|
| |
| Door to FDCT | 12 (7–16; 21) |
| Door to IV–rtPA | 22 (20–26; 34) |
| Door to groin | 25 (19–33; 41) |
| Groin to reperfusion | 38 (25–53; 85) |
| FDCT to reperfusion | 61 (42–69; 101) |
| Door to reperfusion | 66 (52–85; 105) |
|
| |
| Door to FDCT | 15 (10–21; 27) |
| Door to IV–rtPA | 23 (19–29; 38) |
| Door to groin | 33 (25–42; 60) |
| Groin to reperfusion | 38 (25–53; 86) |
| FDCT to reperfusion | 52 (42–69; 101) |
| Door to reperfusion | 66 (52–85; 105) |
Case-control study of FDCT vs. MDCT patients, n =86.
| MDCT, | FDCT, | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Female | 26 (61%) | 26 (61%) | 1.000 |
| IV-rtPA | 36 (84%) | 30 (70%) | 0.201 |
| Hypertension | 35 (81%) | 33 (77%) | 0.791 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 14 (33%) | 20 (47%) | 0.266 |
| PAD | 2 (5%) | 5 (12%) | 0.433 |
| DM | 11 (26%) | 17 (40%) | 0.249 |
| Collateral grading | 7 (5–8) | 7 (4–8) | 0.699 |
| Direct admissions | 30 (70%) | 18 (42%) |
|
| Working hours | 22 (51%) | 19 (44%) | 0.666 |
| Door to CT, min (IQR; 90th) | 15 (11–20; 24) | 9 (6–14; 16) |
|
| Door to IV-rtPA | 27 (22–34; 35) | 19 (12–22; 34) |
|
| Door to groin | 60 (48–68; 79) | 25 (19–30; 38) |
|
| Working hours | 60 (42–65; 85) | 21 (17–25; 41) |
|
| Off-hours | 62 (53–69; 75) | 25 (21–32; 38) |
|
| Direct admissions | 61 (54–67; 83) | 26 (25–38; 44) |
|
| Transfer patients | 40 (30–69; 75) | 21 (19–26; 35) |
|
| Groin to reperfusion | 42 (27–62; 94) | 43 (33–60; 78) | 0.866 |
| CT to reperfusion | 84 (71–99; 144) | 59 (44–75; 96) |
|
| Door to reperfusion | 102 (85–117; 166) | 68 (53–89; 104) |
|
| Working hours | 102 (79–145; 191) | 62 (52–81; 104) |
|
| Off-hours | 103 (93–116; 126) | 74 (55–90; 109) |
|
| Direct admissions | 103 (85–121; 184) | 72 (58–87; 103) |
|
| Transfer patients | 102 (68–109; 120) | 64 (51–88; 108) |
|
| ICA-T | 7 (16%) | 13 (30%) | 0.179 |
| M1 | 26 (61%) | 25 (58%) | 0.888 |
| M2 | 9 (21%) | 3 (7%) | 0.117 |
| Tandem occlusion | 6 (14%) | 7 (16%) | 1 |
| Successful reperfusion (mTICI2b-3) | 31 (72%) | 38 (88%) | 0.102 |
| sICH | 3 (7%) | 2 (5%) | 1 |
| Any hemorrhage | 11 (26%) | 7 (16%) | 0.427 |
| PH–2 hemorrhage | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 1 |
| Discharge mRS | 4 (2–5) | 3 (1–5) | 0.374 |
| 90d mRS | 4 (1–5) | 2 (1–5) | 0.153 |
| 90d mRS of 0–2 | 14 (33%) | 25 (58%) |
|
| Mortality | 9 (21%) | 10 (23%) | 1 |
* Matching variables.
Figure 1Logistic regression model comparing predictors of favorable clinical outcome in the matched population (one-stop management vs. normal management with MDCT).
Figure 2FDCT scan of intracranial hemorrhage which was missed by resident during off-hours.