Search

Background Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular therapy (EVT) are both important treatments for large‐vessel occlusion stroke. However, it is still unclear how the timing of IVT, EVT, and the need for transfer of a patient to an endovascular stroke center for EVT affect outcomes. In this investigation, we study the interaction between IVT, rapidity to EVT, and need for transfer among patients with large‐vessel occlusion stroke. Methods This investigation is an analysis of the OPUS‐REACH (Optimizing the Use Prehospital Stroke Systems of Care–Reacting to Changing Paradigms) registry of patients with large‐vessel occlusion stroke from 9 endovascular centers in the United States. Using the database, we extracted baseline characteristics of patients, whether the patient received IVT, and time intervals in the patients’ care. Patient demographics and characteristics were compared between 2 groups using the χ2 test for categorical variables and 2‐sample t‐tests or Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the adjusted associations of the variables with 90‐day dichotomized modified Rankin Scale outcome. Results A total of 1171 patients were included in the final analysis, and 38.9% had good functional outcome at 90 days. Male sex and lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score were nonmodifiable factors associated with good clinical outcomes. We saw no differences in outcome whether a patient underwent primary or secondary transport. On multiple variable analysis, the receipt of IVT was the only modifiable factor associated with good outcomes. We found no overall effect of time from last known well to EVT on 90‐day outcomes unless the patient received IVT. Conclusions In this investigation, receipt of IVT was independently associated with improved outcomes at 90 days with an odds ratio of 1.51. Neither shorter time from last known well to EVT nor direct transport to an endovascular stroke center versus transfer to an endovascular stroke center was associated with improved outcomes. We therefore conclude that prehospital algorithms must account for the timely administration of IVT over time to EVT.

Abstract Background Large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes are best treated with rapid endovascular therapy (EVT). There are two routes that LVO stroke patients can take to EVT therapy when transported by EMS: primary transport (ambulance transports directly to an endovascular stroke center (ESC) or secondary transport (EMS transports to a non-ESC then transfers for EVT). There is no clear evidence which path to care results in better functional outcomes for LVO stroke patients. To find this answer, an analysis of a large, real-world population of LVO stroke patients must be performed. Methods A pragmatic registry of LVO stroke patients from nine health systems across the United States. The nine health systems span urban and rural populations as well as the spectrum of socioeconomic statuses. We will use univariate and multivariate analysis to explore the relationships between type of EMS transport, socioeconomic factors, and LVO stroke outcomes. We will use geographic information systems and spatial analysis to examine the complex movements of patients in time and space. To detect an 8% difference between groups, with a 3:1 patient ratio of primary to secondary transports, 95% confidence and 80% power, we will need approximately 1600 patients. The primary outcome is the patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤ 2 at 90 days. Subgroup analyses include patients who receive intravenous thrombolysis and duration of stroke systems. Secondary analyses include socioeconomic factors associated with poor outcomes after LVO stroke. Discussion Using the data obtained from the OPUS-REACH registry, we will develop evidence based algorithms for prehospital transport of LVO stroke patients. Unlike prior research, the OPUS-REACH registry contains patient-level data spanning from EMS dispatch to ninety day functional outcomes. We expect that we will find modifiable factors and socioeconomic disparities associated with poor outcomes in LVO stroke. OPUS-REACH with its breadth of locations, detailed patient records, and multidisciplinary researchers will design the optimal prehospital stroke system of care for LVO stroke patients.

Abstract Introduction Blunt traumatic injuries are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population. Contrast‐enhanced multidetector computed tomography is the best imaging tool for screening patients at risk of blunt abdominal injury. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) abdominal rule was derived to identify patients at low risk for significant abdominal injury who do not require imaging. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of pediatric patients with blunt trauma to validate the PECARN rule in a non‐pediatric specialized hospital from February 3, 2013, through December 31, 2019. We excluded those with penetrating or mild isolated head injury. The PECARN decision rule was retrospectively applied for the presence of a therapeutic intervention, defined as a laparotomy, angiographic embolization, blood transfusion, or administration of intravenous fluids for pancreatic or gastrointestinal injury. Sensitivity and specificity analysis were conducted along with the negative and positive predictive values. Results A total of 794 patients were included in the final analysis; 23 patients met the primary outcome for an acute intervention. The PECARN clinical decision rule (CDR) had a sensitivity of 91.3%, a negative predictive value of 99.5, and a negative likelihood ration of 0.16. Conclusion In a non‐pediatric specialty hospital, the PECARN blunt abdominal CDR performed with comparable sensitivity and negative predictive value to the derivation and external validation study performed at specialized children's hospitals.