1. Abstract 1122‐000031: Reasons Thrombectomy Candidates Become Ineligible After Transfer for Treatment in a Hub‐And‐Spoke Telestroke Model
- Author
-
Robert W Regenhardt, Amine Awad, Andrew W Kraft, Joseph A Rosenthal, Adam A Dmytriw, Justin E Vranic, Anna K Bonkhoff, Martin Bretzner, Joshua A Hirsch, James D Rabinov, Christopher J Stapleton, Mark R Etherton, Aneesh B Singhal, Natalia S Rost, Thabele M Leslie‐Mazwi, and Aman B Patel
- Subjects
Stroke ,Endovascular Therapy ,Acute Stroke ,Acute Ischemic Stroke Intervention ,Ischemic Stroke ,Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system ,RC346-429 ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,RC666-701 - Abstract
Introduction: The care of emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) stroke patients has been revolutionized by endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Given its robust efficacy, it is crucial to optimize delivery to eligible patients. Within hub‐and‐spoke hospital system models, some patients first present to distant spoke hospitals and require transfer to hub hospitals for EVT. We sought to understand reasons EVT candidates become ineligible after transfer for treatment. Methods: Consecutive EVT candidates presenting to 25 spokes from 2018 to 2020 with pre‐transfer CTA‐defined ELVO and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score ≥6 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Outcomes of interest included hub EVT, reasons for EVT ineligibility, and 90‐day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale, mRS ≤2). Results: 258 patients were identified with median age 70 years (IQR 60–81) and 50% female. 44% underwent EVT upon hub arrival, of which 87% achieved Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b‐3 reperfusion. Compared to EVT‐eligible patients, ineligible patients were older (73 vs 68 years, p = 0.04), had lower NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS, 10 vs 16, p
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF