Sanjeeva Reddy Onteddu1, Poornachand Veerapaneni2, Krishna Nalleballe3, Hisham Elkhider4, Sisira Yadala5, Karthika Veerapaneni6, Deonna Wissler7, Sen Sheng8, Robert D Skinner9, William C Culp10, Aliza Brown11. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: SROnteddu@uams.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: PVeerapaneni@uams.edu. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: KNalleballe@uams.edu. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: HElkhider@uams.edu. 5. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: SYadala@uams.edu. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: KVeerapaneni@uams.edu. 7. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: DMWissler@uams.edu. 8. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: SSheng@uams.edu. 9. Department of Neurobiology and Developmental Sciences, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: SkinnerRobertD@uams.edu. 10. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: CulpWilliamC@uams.edu. 11. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: BrownAlizaT@uams.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Dawn and Extend Intra-Arterial (IA) acute stroke intervention trials have proven the benefit of thrombectomy in a select group of patients up to 24 h since their last known well time (LKWT) or time of symptom onset. Following the issuance of new treatment guidelines for large vessel occlusion strokes, we reviewed the paradigm shift effect on transfers for possible thrombectomy in a rural state. HYPOTHESIS: Extended time window for thrombectomy increases the need for better identification of potential transfers for thrombectomy in rural states with few hospitals capable of 24/7 interventional thrombectomy. METHODS: We analyzed all transfers to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) from January to December 2018 which were specifically transferred for possible further intervention. This time period was selected in accordance with the change in American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for extended time windows in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) care. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients were transferred for possible thrombectomy and advanced imaging. Thirty-four % patients underwent diagnostic angiogram with 33% patients having successful MT. Of the excluded patients 19% had large core infarcts by the time they arrived at hub hospital, 1.5% had hemorrhagic conversion, 32% had stroke without treatable occlusion not amenable for thrombectomy or cortical strokes on follow-up imaging, and 13.5% did not have stroke or LVO on follow-up imaging. CONCLUSION: Since the AHA's change in time window guidelines for mechanical thrombectomies, there has been an increased effort in identifying good candidates with computerized tomography angiography (CTA). To avoid undue burden on stroke systems of care, CTA identification of these patients at the spoke hospitals is key along with timely transport to appropriate thrombectomy capable sites. Given the rural nature of this state along with limited resources, selection of patients is a practical issue, especially for avoiding futile transfers, which might be true for large areas of the USA.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Dawn and Extend Intra-Arterial (IA) acute stroke intervention trials have proven the benefit of thrombectomy in a select group of patients up to 24 h since their last known well time (LKWT) or time of symptom onset. Following the issuance of new treatment guidelines for large vessel occlusion strokes, we reviewed the paradigm shift effect on transfers for possible thrombectomy in a rural state. HYPOTHESIS: Extended time window for thrombectomy increases the need for better identification of potential transfers for thrombectomy in rural states with few hospitals capable of 24/7 interventional thrombectomy. METHODS: We analyzed all transfers to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) from January to December 2018 which were specifically transferred for possible further intervention. This time period was selected in accordance with the change in American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for extended time windows in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) care. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients were transferred for possible thrombectomy and advanced imaging. Thirty-four % patients underwent diagnostic angiogram with 33% patients having successful MT. Of the excluded patients 19% had large core infarcts by the time they arrived at hub hospital, 1.5% had hemorrhagic conversion, 32% had stroke without treatable occlusion not amenable for thrombectomy or cortical strokes on follow-up imaging, and 13.5% did not have stroke or LVO on follow-up imaging. CONCLUSION: Since the AHA's change in time window guidelines for mechanical thrombectomies, there has been an increased effort in identifying good candidates with computerized tomography angiography (CTA). To avoid undue burden on stroke systems of care, CTA identification of these patients at the spoke hospitals is key along with timely transport to appropriate thrombectomy capable sites. Given the rural nature of this state along with limited resources, selection of patients is a practical issue, especially for avoiding futile transfers, which might be true for large areas of the USA.