Stefanou Maria-Ioanna, Stadler Vera, Baku Dominik, Hennersdorf Florian, Ernemann Ulrike, Ziemann Ulf, Poli Sven, Mengel Annerose
Department of Neurology & Stroke, Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Centre for Neurovascular Diseases Tübingen, ZNET: Zentrum für neurovaskuläre Erkrankungen Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Front Neurol. 2020 Dec 4;11:600917. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.600917. eCollection 2020.
Interhospital transfer for endovascular treatment (EVT) within neurovascular networks might result in transfer of patients who will not undergo EVT (futile transfer). Limited evidence exists on factors associated with the primary patient selection for interhospital transfer from primary stroke centers (PSCs) to comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs), or EVT-workflow parameters that may render a transfer futile. A prospective, registry-based study was performed between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at a hub-and-spoke neurovascular network in southwest Germany, comprising 12 referring PSCs and one designated CSC providing round-the-clock EVT at the University Hospital Tübingen. Patients with acute ischemic stroke due to suspected large artery occlusion (LAO) were included upon emergency interhospital transfer inquiry (ITI). ITI was made for 154 patients, 91 (59%) of whom were transferred to the CSC. Non-transferred patients (41%) had significantly higher premorbid modified Rankin scale scores (mRS) compared to transferred patients [median (IQR): 2 (1-3) vs. 0 (0-1), < 0.001]. Interhospital transfer was denied due to: distal vessel occlusion (44.4%), or non-verifiable LAO (33.3%) in computed tomography angiography (CTA) upon teleconsultation by CSC neuroradiologists; limited Stroke-Unit or ventilation capacity (9.5%), or limited neuroradiological capacity at the CSC (12.7%). The CT-to-ITI interval was significantly longer in patients denied interhospital transfer [median (IQR): 43 (29-56) min] compared to transferred patients [29 (15-55), = 0.029]. No further differences in EVT-workflow, and no differences in the 3-month mRS outcomes were noted between non-transferred and transferred patients [median (IQR): 2 (0-5) vs. 3 (1-4), = 0.189]. After transfer to the CSC, 44 (48%) patients underwent EVT. The Alberta stroke program early CT score [ORadj (95% CI): 1.786 (1.573-2.028), < 0.001] and the CT-to-ITI interval [0.994 (0.991-0.998), = 0.001] were significant predictors of the likelihood of EVT performance. Our findings show that hub-and-spoke neurovascular network infrastructures efficiently enable access to EVT to patients with AIS due to LAO, who are primarily admitted to PSCs without on-site EVT availability. As in real-world settings optimal allocation of EVT resources is warranted, teleconsultation by experienced endovascular interventionists and prompt interhospital-transfer-inquiries are crucial to reduce the futile transfer rates and optimize patient selection for EVT within neurovascular networks.
在神经血管网络内进行血管内治疗(EVT)的院间转运可能会导致转运那些不会接受EVT的患者(无效转运)。关于从初级卒中中心(PSC)向综合卒中中心(CSC)进行院间转运的主要患者选择相关因素,或可能导致转运无效的EVT工作流程参数,现有证据有限。2017年7月1日至2018年6月30日期间,在德国西南部的一个中心 - 辐条式神经血管网络中进行了一项基于注册登记的前瞻性研究,该网络包括12个转诊PSC和一个位于图宾根大学医院提供全天候EVT的指定CSC。因疑似大动脉闭塞(LAO)导致急性缺血性卒中的患者在紧急院间转运咨询(ITI)时被纳入。共进行了154例ITI,其中91例(59%)患者被转运至CSC。与转运患者相比,未转运患者(41%)病前改良Rankin量表评分(mRS)显著更高[中位数(四分位间距):2(1 - 3) vs. 0(0 - 1),<0.001]。院间转运被拒绝的原因包括:CSC神经放射科医生远程会诊时计算机断层血管造影(CTA)显示远端血管闭塞(44.4%)或无法证实的LAO(33.3%);卒中单元或通气能力有限(9.5%),或CSC神经放射学能力有限(12.7%)。与转运患者相比,未被允许院间转运的患者CT至ITI间隔明显更长[中位数(四分位间距):43(29 - 56)分钟] [29(15 - 55),=0.029]。未转运和转运患者之间在EVT工作流程方面没有进一步差异,3个月mRS结局也无差异[中位数(四分位间距):2(0 - 5) vs. 3(1 - 4),=0.189]。转运至CSC后,44例(48%)患者接受了EVT。阿尔伯塔卒中项目早期CT评分[校正后比值比(95%可信区间):1.786(1.573 - 2.028),<0.001]和CT至ITI间隔[0.994(0.991 - 0.998),=0.001]是EVT实施可能性的显著预测因素。我们的研究结果表明,中心 - 辐条式神经血管网络基础设施有效地使因LAO导致急性缺血性卒中且最初入住无现场EVT的PSC的患者能够接受EVT。由于在现实环境中需要对EVT资源进行最佳分配,经验丰富的血管内介入专家进行远程会诊和及时的院间转运咨询对于降低无效转运率和优化神经血管网络内EVT的患者选择至关重要。