From the Department of Public Health (E.V., H.F.L., V.C., E.W.S.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Neurology (E.V., V.C., M.J.H.L.M., D.W.J.D., B.R.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Stroke. 2019 Feb;50(2):313-320. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022562.
Background and Purpose- Direct transportation to a center with facilities for endovascular treatment might be beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke, but it can also cause harm by delay of intravenous treatment. Our aim was to determine the optimal prehospital transportation strategy for individual patients and to assess which factors influence this decision. Methods- We constructed a decision tree model to compare outcome of ischemic stroke patients after transportation to a primary stroke center versus a more distant intervention center. The optimal strategy was estimated based on individual patient characteristics, geographic location, and workflow times. In the base case scenario, the primary stroke center was located at 20 minutes and the intervention center at 45 minutes. Additional sensitivity analyses included an urban scenario (10 versus 20 minutes) and a rural scenario (30 versus 90 minutes). Results- Direct transportation to the intervention center led to better outcomes in the base case scenario when the likelihood of a large vessel occlusion as a cause of the ischemic stroke was >33%. With a high likelihood of large vessel occlusion (66%, comparable with a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation score of 5 or above), the benefit of direct transportation to the intervention center was 0.10 quality-adjusted life years (=36 days in full health). In the urban scenario, direct transportation to an intervention center was beneficial when the risk of large vessel occlusion was 24% or higher. In the rural scenario, this threshold was 49%. Other factors influencing the decision included door-to-needle times, door-to-groin times, and the door-in-door-out time. Conclusions- The preferred prehospital transportation strategy for suspected stroke patients depends mainly on the likelihood of large vessel occlusion, driving times, and in-hospital workflow times. We constructed a robust model that combines these characteristics and can be used to personalize prehospital triage, especially in more remote areas.
背景与目的-直接将患者转运至具有血管内治疗设施的中心可能对急性缺血性脑卒中患者有益,但也可能因静脉治疗的延迟而造成伤害。我们的目的是为个体患者确定最佳的院前转运策略,并评估哪些因素会影响这一决策。
方法-我们构建了一个决策树模型,以比较将缺血性脑卒中患者转运至初级卒中中心与转运至更远的介入中心的结局。根据患者个体特征、地理位置和工作流程时间,估计最佳策略。在基本情况下,初级卒中中心的位置距离为 20 分钟,介入中心的位置距离为 45 分钟。额外的敏感性分析包括城市情况(10 分钟与 20 分钟)和农村情况(30 分钟与 90 分钟)。
结果-在基本情况下,如果缺血性脑卒中的大血管闭塞的可能性>33%,则直接转运至介入中心可获得更好的结局。在大血管闭塞的可能性较高(66%,与 Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation 评分 5 分或以上相当)时,直接转运至介入中心的获益为 0.10 个质量调整生命年(完全健康状态下为 36 天)。在城市情况下,当大血管闭塞的风险为 24%或更高时,直接转运至介入中心是有益的。在农村情况下,这一阈值为 49%。影响决策的其他因素包括从 door-to-needle 时间、从 door-to-groin 时间和 door-in-door-out 时间。
结论-疑似脑卒中患者首选的院前转运策略主要取决于大血管闭塞的可能性、驾驶时间和院内工作流程时间。我们构建了一个稳健的模型,该模型综合了这些特征,可用于个性化院前分诊,尤其是在更偏远的地区。