So based on not even reporting the relevant information this has to be considered a complete failure of research.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474442212700571
Choose an option to locate/access this article:
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution
Check access- Refers To
Mobile acute stroke units: bringing the hospital to the patient
- The Lancet Neurology, Volume 11, Issue 5, May 2012, Pages 382-383
- Referred to by
Errata
- The Lancet Neurology, Volume 11, Issue 6, June 2012, Page 483
Mobile acute stroke units: bringing the hospital to the patient
- The Lancet Neurology, Volume 11, Issue 5, May 2012, Pages 382-383
Klaus Fassbender
- The Lancet Neurology, Volume 11, Issue 5, May 2012, Page 395
Summary
Background
Only
2–5% of patients who have a stroke receive thrombolytic treatment,
mainly because of delay in reaching the hospital. We aimed to assess the
efficacy of a new approach of diagnosis and treatment starting at the
emergency site, rather than after hospital arrival, in reducing delay in
stroke therapy.
Methods
We
did a randomised single-centre controlled trial to compare the time from
alarm (emergency call) to therapy decision between mobile stroke unit
(MSU) and hospital intervention. For inclusion in our study patients
needed to be aged 18–80 years and have one or more stroke symptoms that
started within the previous 2·5 h. In accordance with our week-wise
randomisation plan, patients received either prehospital stroke
treatment in a specialised ambulance (equipped with a CT scanner,
point-of-care laboratory, and telemedicine connection) or optimised
conventional hospital-based stroke treatment (control group) with a 7
day follow-up. Allocation was not masked from patients and
investigators. Our primary endpoint was time from alarm to therapy
decision, which was analysed with the Mann-Whitney U test. Our
secondary endpoints included times from alarm to end of CT and to end of
laboratory analysis, number of patients receiving intravenous
thrombolysis, time from alarm to intravenous thrombolysis, and
neurological outcome. We also assessed safety endpoints. This study is
registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00792220.
Findings
We
stopped the trial after our planned interim analysis at 100 of 200
planned patients (53 in the prehospital stroke treatment group, 47 in
the control group), because we had met our prespecified criteria for
study termination. Prehospital stroke treatment reduced the median time
from alarm to therapy decision substantially: 35 min (IQR 31–39) versus
76 min (63–94), p<0·0001; median difference 41 min (95% CI 36–48
min). We also detected similar gains regarding times from alarm to end
of CT, and alarm to end of laboratory analysis, and to intravenous
thrombolysis for eligible ischaemic stroke patients, although there was
no substantial difference in number of patients who received intravenous
thrombolysis or in neurological outcome. Safety endpoints seemed
similar across the groups.
Interpretation
For
patients with suspected stroke, treatment by the MSU substantially
reduced median time from alarm to therapy decision. The MSU strategy
offers a potential solution to the medical problem of the arrival of
most stroke patients at the hospital too late for treatment.
Funding
Ministry
of Health of the Saarland, Germany, the Werner-Jackstädt Foundation,
the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Foundation, and the Rettungsstiftung Saar.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment