Is telestroke more effective than conventional treatment for acute ischemic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient outcomes and thrombolysis rates.

BACKGROUND

Telestroke systems operate through remote communication, providing distant stroke evaluation through expert healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to assess whether the implementation of a telestroke system influenced stroke treatment outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients compared with conventional in-person treatment.

AIMS

The study group evaluated multiple studies from electronic databases, comparing telemedicine (TM) and non-telemedicine (NTM) AIS patients between 1999 and 2022. We aimed to evaluate baseline characteristics, critical treatment times, and clinical outcomes.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

A total of 12,540 AIS patients were included in our study with 7936 (63.9%) thrombolyzed patients. Of the thrombolyzed patients, 4150 (51.7%) were treated with TM, while 3873 (48.3%) were not. The mean age of TM and NTM cohorts was 70.45 ± 4.68 and 70.42 ± 4.63, respectively (p > 0.05). Mean National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores were comparable, with the TM group reporting a non-significantly higher mean (11.89 ± 3.29.6 vs. 11.13 ± 3.65, p > 0.05). No significant difference in outcomes was found for symptoms onset-to-intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (ivtPA) times (144.09 ± 18.87 vs. 147.18 ± 25.97, p = 0.632) and door-to-needle times (73.03 ± 20.04 vs. 65.91 ± 25.96, p = 0.321). Modified Rankin scale scores (0-2) were evaluated, and no significant difference was detected between cohorts (odds ratio (OR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-1.29, p = 0.500). Outcomes did not indicate any significance between both cohorts for 90-day mortality (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.94-1.43, p = 0.17) or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.73-1.34, p = 0.93). Results between groups were also non-significant when analyzing the rate of thrombolysis with ivtPA (30.86%± 30.7 vs. 20.5%± 18.6, p = 0.372) and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (11.8%± 11.7 vs. 18.7%± 18.9, p = 0.508).

CONCLUSION

The use of telestroke in the treatment of AIS patients is safe with minimal non-significant differences in long-term outcomes and rates of thrombolysis compared with face-to-face treatment. Further studies comparing the different methods of TM are needed to assess the efficacy of TM in stroke treatment.