Search

Background and purpose: The existence of contraindications to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is considered a criterion for direct transfer of patients with suspected acute stroke to thrombectomy‐capable centers in the prehospital setting. Our aim was to assess the utility of this criterion in a setting where routing protocols are defined by the Madrid – Direct Referral to Endovascular Center (M‐DIRECT) prehospital scale. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of the M‐DIRECT study. Reported contraindications to IVT were retrospectively collected from emergency medical services reports and categorized into late window, anticoagulant treatment and other contraindications. Final diagnosis and treatment rates were compared between patients with and without reported IVT contraindications and according to anticoagulant treatment or late window categories. Results: The M‐DIRECT study included 541 patients. Reported IVT contraindications were present in 227 (42.0%) patients. Regarding final diagnosis no significant differences were found between patients with or without reported IVT contraindications: ischaemic stroke (any) 65.6% vs. 62.1%, ischaemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO) 32.2% vs. 28.3%, hemorrhagic stroke 15.4% vs. 15.6%, stroke mimic 18.9% vs. 22.3% respectively. Amongst patients with LVO, endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) was performed less often in the presence of IVT contraindications (56.2% vs. 74.2%). M‐DIRECT‐positive patients had higher rates of LVO and EVT compared with M‐DIRECT‐negative patients independent of reported IVT contraindications. Conclusions: Reported IVT contraindications alone do not increase EVT likelihood and should not be considered to determine routing in urban stroke networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose For patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion, it has recently been shown that mechanical thrombectomy ( MT) with stent retrievers is better than medical treatment alone. However, few hospitals can provide MT 24 h/day 365 days/year, and it remains unclear whether selected patients with acute stroke should be directly transferred to the nearest MT-providing hospital to prevent treatment delays. Clinical scales such as Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation ( RACE) have been developed to predict large-vessel occlusion at a pre-hospital level, but their predictive value for MT is low. We propose new criteria to identify patients eligible for MT, with higher accuracy. Methods The Direct Referral to Endovascular Center criteria were defined based on a retrospective cohort of 317 patients admitted to a stroke center. The association of age, sex, RACE scale score and blood pressure with the likelihood of receiving MT were analyzed. Cut-off points with the highest association were thereafter evaluated in a prospective cohort of 153 patients from nine stroke units comprising the Madrid Stroke Network. Results Patients with a RACE scale score ≥ 5, systolic blood pressure <190 mmHg and age <81 years showed a significantly higher probability of undergoing MT (odds ratio, 33.38; 95% confidence interval, 12-92.9). This outcome was confirmed in the prospective cohort, with 68% sensitivity, 84% specificity, 42% positive and 94% negative predictive values for MT, ruling out 83% of hemorrhagic strokes. Conclusions The Direct Referral to Endovascular Center criteria could be useful for identifying patients suitable for MT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]