Deans' stroke musings: Mobile Interventional Stroke Teams Lead to Faster Treatment Times for Thrombectomy in Large Vessel Occlusion

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 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:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. 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 lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Mobile Interventional Stroke Teams Lead to Faster Treatment Times for Thrombectomy in Large Vessel Occlusion

So fucking what about faster treatment times? Were the results better? 100% recovery? Doesn't anyone in stroke know how to measure the correct endpoints? My god, the incompetency out there in the stroke world is amazing.
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/48/12/3295?etoc=

, Thomas J. Oxley, , , , Laura Stein, , , Jacob R. Morey, Claire Schwegel, , Hazem Shoirah, Christopher P. Kellner, , Stephan A. Mayer, Stanley Tuhrim, Srinivasan Paramasivam, J Mocco, Johanna T. Fifi

https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018149

Stroke. 2017;48:3295-3300

Originally published November 16, 2017

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.

Abstract

Background and Purpose—Endovascular recanalization treatment for acute ischemic stroke is a complex, time-sensitive intervention. Trip-and-treat is an interhospital service delivery model that has not previously been evaluated in the literature and consists of a shared mobile interventional stroke team that travels to primary stroke centers to provide on-site interventional capability. We compared treatment times between the trip-and-treat model and the traditional drip-and-ship model.

Methods—We performed a retrospective analysis on 86 consecutive eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion who received endovascular treatment at 4 hospitals in Manhattan. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: trip-and-treat (n=39) and drip-and-ship (n=47). The primary outcome was initial door-to-puncture time, defined as the time between arrival at any hospital and arterial puncture. We also recorded and analyzed the times of last known well, IV-tPA (intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator) administration, transfer, and reperfusion.

Results—Mean initial door-to-puncture time was 143 minutes for trip-and-treat and 222 minutes for drip-and-ship (P<0.0001). Although there was a trend in longer puncture-to-recanalization times for trip-and-treat (P=0.0887), initial door-to-recanalization was nonetheless 79 minutes faster for trip-and-treat (P<0.0001). There was a trend in improved admission-to-discharge change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale for trip-and-treat compared with drip-and-ship (P=0.0704).

Conclusions—Compared with drip-and-ship, the trip-and-treat model demonstrated shorter treatment times for endovascular therapy in our series. The trip-and-treat model offers a valid alternative to current interhospital stroke transfers in urban environments.