Center for Health Services Research, Department of Family Medicine, The Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
JAMA Neurol. 2021 May 1;78(5):527-535. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.0023.
Telestroke is increasingly used in hospital emergency departments, but there has been limited research on its impact on treatment and outcomes.
To describe differences in care patterns and outcomes among patients with acute ischemic stroke who present to hospitals with and without telestroke capacity.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with acute ischemic stroke who first presented to hospitals with telestroke capacity were matched with patients who presented to control hospitals without telestroke capacity. All traditional Medicare beneficiaries with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke (approximately 2.5 million) who presented to a hospital between January 2008 and June 2017 were considered. Matching was based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, hospital characteristics, and month and year of admission. Hospitals included short-term acute care and critical access hospitals in the US without local stroke expertise. In 643 hospitals with telestroke capacity, there were 76 636 patients with stroke who were matched 1:1 to patients at similar hospitals without telestroke capacity. Data were analyzed in July 2020.
Receipt of reperfusion treatment through thrombolysis with alteplase or thrombectomy, mortality at 30 days from admission, spending through 90 days from admission, and functional status as measured by days spent living in the community after discharge.
In the final sample of 153 272 patients, 88 386 (57.7%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 78.8 (10.4) years. Patients cared for at telestroke hospitals had higher rates of reperfusion treatment compared with those cared for at control hospitals (6.8% vs 6.0%; difference, 0.78 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.54-1.03; P < .001) and lower 30-day mortality (13.1% vs 13.6%; difference, 0.50 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.17-0.83, P = .003). There were no differences in days spent living in the community following discharge or in spending. Increases in reperfusion treatment were largest in the lowest-volume hospitals, among rural residents, and among patients 85 years and older.
Patients with ischemic stroke treated at hospitals with telestroke capacity were more likely to receive reperfusion treatment and have lower 30-day mortality.
远程卒中越来越多地应用于医院急诊部门,但关于其对治疗和结果的影响的研究有限。
描述在具有和不具有远程卒中能力的医院就诊的急性缺血性卒中患者之间的护理模式和结局差异。
设计、设置和参与者:符合条件的患者为在具有远程卒中能力的医院首次就诊的急性缺血性卒中患者,并与在不具有远程卒中能力的对照医院就诊的患者相匹配。所有接受传统医疗保险、且主要诊断为急性缺血性卒中(约 250 万人)、在 2008 年 1 月至 2017 年 6 月期间在医院就诊的患者都被纳入考虑。匹配基于人口统计学和临床特征、医院特征以及入院月份和年份。医院包括美国没有当地卒中专业知识的短期急性护理和关键接入医院。在 643 家具有远程卒中能力的医院中,有 76636 名卒中患者与在类似无远程卒中能力医院就诊的患者进行了 1:1 匹配。数据分析于 2020 年 7 月进行。
接受阿替普酶或血栓切除术溶栓再灌注治疗、入院后 30 天死亡率、入院后 90 天内的支出以及出院后在社区居住的天数来衡量的功能状态。
在最终的 153272 例患者样本中,88386 例(57.7%)为女性,平均(SD)年龄为 78.8(10.4)岁。与在对照医院接受治疗的患者相比,在远程卒中医院接受治疗的患者接受再灌注治疗的比例更高(6.8%比 6.0%;差值为 0.78 个百分点;95%CI,0.54-1.03;P < .001),30 天死亡率更低(13.1%比 13.6%;差值为 0.50 个百分点;95%CI,0.17-0.83,P = .003)。出院后在社区居住的天数或支出方面无差异。再灌注治疗的增加在最低容量医院、农村居民和 85 岁及以上的患者中最大。
在具有远程卒中能力的医院接受治疗的缺血性卒中患者更有可能接受再灌注治疗,且 30 天死亡率更低。