Deans' stroke musings

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Telemedicine Can Replace the Neurologist on a Mobile Stroke Unit

Does no one ever look at results of stroke interventions? Having matching failures rates for tPA full efficacy of 12% is still a fucking failure. Who gives a shit if telemedicine is feasible if using it still leads to failure of results?

Tzu-Ching Wu, Stephanie A. Parker, Amanda Jagolino, Jose-Miguel Yamal, Ritvij Bowry, Abraham Thomas, Amy Yu, James C. Grotta
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.


Background and Purpose—The BEST-MSU study (Benefits of Stroke Treatment Delivered Using a Mobile Stroke Unit) is a comparative effectiveness trial in patients randomized to mobile stroke unit or standard management. A substudy tested interrater agreement for tissue-type plasminogen activator eligibility between a telemedicine vascular neurologist and onboard vascular neurologist.
Methods—On scene, both the telemedicine vascular neurologist and onboard vascular neurologist independently evaluated the patient, documenting their tissue-type plasminogen activator treatment decision, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and computed tomographic interpretation. Agreement was determined using Cohen κ statistic. Telemedicine-related technical failures that impeded remote assessment were recorded.
Results—Simultaneous and independent telemedicine vascular neurologist and onboard vascular neurologist assessment was attempted in 174 patients. In 4 patients (2%), the telemedicine vascular neurologist could not make a decision because of technical problems. The telemedicine vascular neurologist agreed with the onboard vascular neurologist on 88% of evaluations (κ=0.73).
Conclusions—Remote telemedicine vascular neurologist assessment is reliable and accurate, supporting either telemedicine vascular neurologist or onboard vascular neurologist assessment on our mobile stroke unit.
Clinical Trial Registration—URL: Unique identifier: NCT02190500.

No comments:

Post a Comment