Ali Syed F, Fonarow Gregg, Liang Li, Xian Ying, Smith Eric E, Bhatt Deepak L, Schwamm Lee
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock (S.F.A.).
University of California, Los Angeles (G.F.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018 Sep;11(9):e003359. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003359.
Background While many patients are transferred to specialized stroke centers for advanced acute ischemic stroke (AIS) care, few studies have characterized these patients. We sought to determine variation in the rates and differences in the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes between AIS cases presenting directly to stroke centers' front door versus Transfer-Ins from another hospital. Methods and Results We analyzed 970 390 AIS cases in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry from January 2010 to March 2014 to compare hospitals with high Transfer-In rates (≥15%) versus those with low Transfer-In rates (<5%) and to compare the front-door versus Transfer-In patients admitted to those hospitals with high Transfer-In rates (high Transfer-In hospitals). Of 970 390 patients discharged from 1646 hospitals, 87% initially presented via the emergency department versus 13% were a Transfer-In from another hospital. High Transfer-In hospitals had a median 31% Transfer-In rate among all stroke discharges, were larger, had higher annual AIS volume and intravenous tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) rates, and were more often Midwest teaching hospitals and stroke centers. Compared with front-door, Transfer-In patients were younger, more often white, had higher median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores, less often hypertension and previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, and higher in-hospital mortality (7.9% versus 4.9%; standardized difference, 12.4%). After multivariable adjustment, Transfer-In patients had higher in-hospital mortality and discharge modified Rankin scale. Conclusions There is significant regional variability in the transfer of patients with AIS. Because Transfer-In patients seem to have worse short-term outcomes, these patients have the potential to negatively influence institutional mortality rates and should be accounted for explicitly in hospital risk-profiling measures.
虽然许多患者被转至专业卒中中心接受晚期急性缺血性卒中(AIS)治疗,但很少有研究对这些患者进行特征描述。我们试图确定直接前往卒中中心前门就诊的AIS病例与从其他医院转入的病例在发生率、基线特征及临床结局方面的差异。
我们分析了2010年1月至2014年3月“遵循指南-卒中”注册研究中的970390例AIS病例,以比较转入率高(≥15%)的医院与转入率低(<5%)的医院,并比较转入率高的医院(高转入医院)中前门就诊患者与转入患者的情况。在从1646家医院出院的970390例患者中,87%最初通过急诊科就诊,13%是从其他医院转入。高转入医院在所有卒中出院病例中的转入率中位数为31%,规模更大,年度AIS病例量和静脉注射tPA(组织型纤溶酶原激活剂)率更高,且更多是中西部教学医院和卒中中心。与前门就诊患者相比,转入患者更年轻,白人比例更高,美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分中位数更高,高血压和既往卒中/短暂性脑缺血发作的比例更低,住院死亡率更高(7.9%对4.9%;标准化差异为12.4%)。多变量调整后,转入患者的住院死亡率和出院改良Rankin量表评分更高。
AIS患者的转运存在显著的地区差异。由于转入患者的短期结局似乎更差,这些患者可能会对机构死亡率产生负面影响,应在医院风险评估措施中明确予以考虑。