Hooman Kamel1, Neal S Parikh1, Abhinaba Chatterjee1, Luke K Kim2, Jeffrey L Saver3, Lee H Schwamm4, Kori S Zachrison5, Raul G Nogueira6, Opeolu Adeoye7, Iván Díaz8, Andrew M Ryan9, Ankur Pandya10, Babak B Navi1. 1. Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Unit, Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute and Department of Neurology (H.K., N.S.P., A.C., B.B.N.), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 2. Division of Cardiology (L.K.K.), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 3. Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles (J.L.S.). 4. Department of Neurology (L.H.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine (K.S.Z.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 6. Departments of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA (R.G.N.). 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, OH (O.A.). 8. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (I.D.), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 9. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor (A.M.R.). 10. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA (A.P.).
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Mechanical thrombectomy helps prevent disability in patients with acute ischemic stroke involving occlusion of a large cerebral vessel. Thrombectomy requires procedural expertise and not all hospitals have the staff to perform this intervention. Few population-wide data exist regarding access to mechanical thrombectomy. Methods: We examined access to thrombectomy for ischemic stroke using discharge data from calendar years 2016 to 2018 from all nonfederal emergency departments and acute care hospitals across 11 US states encompassing 80 million residents. Facilities were classified as hubs if they performed mechanical thrombectomy, gateways if they transferred patients who ultimately underwent mechanical thrombectomy, and gaps otherwise. We used standard descriptive statistics and unadjusted logistic regression models in our primary analyses. Results: Among 205 681 patients with ischemic stroke, 100 139 (48.7% [95% CI, 48.5%–48.9%]) initially received care at a thrombectomy hub, 72 534 (35.3% [95% CI, 35.1%–35.5%]) at a thrombectomy gateway, and 33 008 (16.0% [95% CI, 15.9%–16.2%]) at a thrombectomy gap. Patients who initially received care at thrombectomy gateways were substantially less likely to ultimately undergo thrombectomy than patients who initially received care at thrombectomy hubs (odds ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.25–0.28]). Rural patients had particularly limited access: 27.7% (95% CI, 26.9%–28.6%) of such patients initially received care at hubs versus 69.5% (95% CI, 69.1%–69.9%) of urban patients. For 93.8% (95% CI, 93.6%–94.0%) of patients with stroke at gateways, their initial facility was capable of delivering intravenous thrombolysis, compared with 76.3% (95% CI, 75.8%–76.7%) of patients at gaps. Our findings were unchanged in models adjusted for demographics and comorbidities and persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, including analyses adjusting for estimated stroke severity. Conclusions: We found that a substantial proportion of patients with ischemic stroke across the United States lacked access to thrombectomy even after accounting for interhospital transfers. US systems of stroke care require further development to optimize thrombectomy access.
Background and Purpose: Mechanical thrombectomy helps prevent disability in patients with acute ischemic stroke involving occlusion of a large cerebral vessel. Thrombectomy requires procedural expertise and not all hospitals have the staff to perform this intervention. Few population-wide data exist regarding access to mechanical thrombectomy. Methods: We examined access to thrombectomy for ischemic stroke using discharge data from calendar years 2016 to 2018 from all nonfederal emergency departments and acute care hospitals across 11 US states encompassing 80 million residents. Facilities were classified as hubs if they performed mechanical thrombectomy, gateways if they transferred patients who ultimately underwent mechanical thrombectomy, and gaps otherwise. We used standard descriptive statistics and unadjusted logistic regression models in our primary analyses. Results: Among 205 681 patients with ischemic stroke, 100 139 (48.7% [95% CI, 48.5%–48.9%]) initially received care at a thrombectomy hub, 72 534 (35.3% [95% CI, 35.1%–35.5%]) at a thrombectomy gateway, and 33 008 (16.0% [95% CI, 15.9%–16.2%]) at a thrombectomy gap. Patients who initially received care at thrombectomy gateways were substantially less likely to ultimately undergo thrombectomy than patients who initially received care at thrombectomy hubs (odds ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.25–0.28]). Rural patients had particularly limited access: 27.7% (95% CI, 26.9%–28.6%) of such patients initially received care at hubs versus 69.5% (95% CI, 69.1%–69.9%) of urban patients. For 93.8% (95% CI, 93.6%–94.0%) of patients with stroke at gateways, their initial facility was capable of delivering intravenous thrombolysis, compared with 76.3% (95% CI, 75.8%–76.7%) of patients at gaps. Our findings were unchanged in models adjusted for demographics and comorbidities and persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, including analyses adjusting for estimated stroke severity. Conclusions: We found that a substantial proportion of patients with ischemic stroke across the United States lacked access to thrombectomy even after accounting for interhospital transfers. US systems of stroke care require further development to optimize thrombectomy access.
Entities:
Keywords:
United States; access to treatment; healthcare systems; ischemic stroke; thrombectomy
Authors: Lorenzo Rinaldo; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Harry Cloft; John M Knudsen; Leonardo Rangel Castilla; Waleed Brinjikji Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Tyler S Williamson; Andrew M Demchuk; Henry Zhao; Luke Zhu; Michael J Francis; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill; Noreen Kamal Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 18.302
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: Matthew S W Milne; Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Michael D Hill; Anders Nygren; Chao Qiu; Mayank Goyal; Noreen Kamal Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Amy Y X Yu; Peter C Austin; Mohammed Rashid; Jiming Fang; Joan Porter; Michael D Hill; Moira K Kapral Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-02-14
Authors: Shreyansh Shah; Ying Xian; Shubin Sheng; Kori S Zachrison; Jeffrey L Saver; Kevin N Sheth; Gregg C Fonarow; Lee H Schwamm; Eric E Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Karen L Furie; Michael H Lev; Hakan Ay; Aneesh B Singhal; David M Greer; Gordon J Harris; Elkan Halpern; Walter J Koroshetz; Wade S Smith Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Neal S Parikh; Abhinaba Chatterjee; Iván Díaz; Ankur Pandya; Alexander E Merkler; Gino Gialdini; Benjamin R Kummer; Saad A Mir; Michael P Lerario; Matthew E Fink; Babak B Navi; Hooman Kamel Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Eric I Benchimol; Liam Smeeth; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; David Moher; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Erik von Elm; Sinéad M Langan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Robert W Regenhardt; Amine Awad; Andrew W Kraft; Joseph A Rosenthal; Adam A Dmytriw; Justin E Vranic; Anna K Bonkhoff; Martin Bretzner; Mark R Etherton; Joshua A Hirsch; James D Rabinov; Aneesh B Singhal; Natalia S Rost; Christopher J Stapleton; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Aman B Patel Journal: Stroke Vasc Interv Neurol Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Sushanth Rao Aroor; Kaiz S Asif; Jennifer Potter-Vig; Arun Sharma; Bijoy K Menon; Violiza Inoa; Cynthia B Zevallos; Jose G Romano; Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez; Larry B Goldstein; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: J Stroke Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 6.967
Authors: Kori S Zachrison; Margaret E Samuels-Kalow; Sijia Li; Zhiyu Yan; Mathew J Reeves; Renee Y Hsia; Lee H Schwamm; Carlos A Camargo Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2022-03-14