Man Shumei, Zhao Xin, Uchino Ken, Hussain M Shazam, Smith Eric E, Bhatt Deepak L, Xian Ying, Schwamm Lee H, Shah Shreyansh, Khan Yosef, Fonarow Gregg C
Department of Neurology, Miami Valley Hospital, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH (S.M.).
Cerebrovascular Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH (S.M., K.U., M.S.H.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018 Jun;11(6):e004512. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.117.004512.
To improve stroke care, the Brain Attack Coalition recommended establishing primary stroke center (PSC) and comprehensive stroke center (CSC) certification. This study aimed to compare ischemic stroke care and in-hospital outcomes between CSCs and PSCs.
We analyzed patients with acute ischemic stroke who were hospitalized at stroke centers participating in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke from 2013 to 2015. Multivariable logistic regression models were generated to examine the association between stroke center certification (CSC versus PSC) and performances and outcomes. This study included 722 941 patients who were admitted to 134 CSCs and 1047 PSCs. Both CSCs and PSCs had good conformity to 7 performance measures and the summary defect-free care measure. Among emergency department admissions, CSCs had higher intravenous tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) and endovascular thrombectomy rates than PSCs (14.3% versus 10.3%, 4.1% versus 1.0%, respectively). Door to intravenous tPA time was shorter at CSCs (median, 52 versus 61 minutes; adjusted risk ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.95). More patients at CSCs had door to intravenous tPA time ≤60 minutes (79.7% versus 65.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.75). For transferred patients, CSCs and PSCs had comparable overall performance in defect-free care, except higher endovascular thrombectomy therapy rates. The overall in-hospital mortality was higher at CSCs in both emergency department admissions (4.6% versus 3.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.29) and transferred patients (7.7% versus 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.32). In-hospital outcomes were comparable between CSCs and PSCs in patients who received intravenous tPA or endovascular thrombectomy.
CSCs and PSCs achieved similar overall care quality for patients with acute ischemic stroke. CSCs exceeded PSCs in timely acute reperfusion therapy for emergency department admissions, whereas PSCs had lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. This information may be important for acute stroke triage and targeted quality improvement.
为改善卒中护理,脑卒中介入联盟建议设立初级卒中中心(PSC)和综合卒中中心(CSC)认证。本研究旨在比较CSC和PSC之间的缺血性卒中护理及院内结局。
我们分析了2013年至2015年在参与“遵循卒中指南”项目的卒中中心住院的急性缺血性卒中患者。生成多变量逻辑回归模型以检验卒中中心认证(CSC与PSC)与诊疗表现及结局之间的关联。本研究纳入了722941例患者,他们分别入住134个CSC和1047个PSC。CSC和PSC在7项诊疗指标及总体无缺陷护理指标方面均具有良好的依从性。在急诊科收治的患者中,CSC的静脉注射tPA(组织型纤溶酶原激活剂)和血管内血栓切除术的比例高于PSC(分别为14.3%对10.3%,4.1%对1.0%)。CSC的从入院到静脉注射tPA的时间更短(中位数分别为52分钟和61分钟;校正风险比为0.92;95%置信区间为0.89 - 0.95)。更多CSC的患者从入院到静脉注射tPA的时间≤60分钟(79.7%对65.1%;校正比值比为1.48;95%置信区间为1.25 - 1.75)。对于转诊患者,CSC和PSC在无缺陷护理方面的总体表现相当,但血管内血栓切除术治疗率更高。在急诊科收治患者(4.6%对3.8%;校正比值比为1.14;95%置信区间为1.01 - 1.29)和转诊患者(7.7%对6.8%;校正比值比为1.17;95%置信区间为1.05 - 1.32)中,CSC的总体院内死亡率均更高。接受静脉注射tPA或血管内血栓切除术的患者,CSC和PSC的院内结局相当。
CSC和PSC在急性缺血性卒中患者的总体护理质量方面相似。在急诊科收治患者的及时急性再灌注治疗方面,CSC超过PSC,而PSC的风险校正后院内死亡率更低。这些信息对于急性卒中分诊和有针对性的质量改进可能很重要。