Mobile stroke unit versus standard medical care in the management of patients with acute stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

What fucking stupidity, you are not even measuring 100% recovery.  Better clinical outcome is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. If you don't know how fast tPA needs to be delivered to get 100% recovery you have no goal to shoot for and you don't know what you are doing.  I personally think mobile stroke units are way too slow as currently setup. You have to get the neurologist out of the picture, because of all the diagnosis failures.

• diagnosis failure (27)

 

Maybe one of these much faster possibilities?

Hats off to Helmet of Hope - stroke diagnosis in 30 seconds   February 2017

 

Microwave Imaging for Brain Stroke Detection and Monitoring using High Performance Computing in 94 seconds March 2017

 

New Device Quickly Assesses Brain Bleeding in Head Injuries - 5-10 minutes April 2017

The latest here:

Mobile stroke unit versus standard medical care in the management of patients with acute stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Show all authors

Nida Fatima, Maher Saqqur, M Shazam Hussain, ...

First Published June 9, 2020 Review Article Find in PubMed 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493020929964

Article information

   

Abstract

Introduction

Mobile stroke units have recently been introduced in the care of patients suspected of having an acute stroke, leading to shortening in the time to thrombolytics. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness in terms of functional outcome and survival among patients treated in mobile stroke unit and/or conventional care.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases, comparing the clinical outcomes among patients with acute stroke in the same study was conducted from 1990 to 2019. Pooled and subgroup analysis were performed using the random- and fixed-effect model based upon the I² heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 21,297 patients from 11 publications (seven randomized controlled trials and four non-randomized controlled trials including prospective cohort studies) were retrieved. This included 6065 (n = 28.4%) of the patients treated in the mobile stroke unit and 71.6% (n = 15,232) of the patients managed in the conventional care. The mean age at clinical presentation (70.1 ± 14.5 vs. 71.05 ± 15.8) and National Institute Health Stroke Scale (9.8 ± 1.7 vs. 8.4 ± 1.5) was comparable (p > 0.05) in patients treated with mobile stroke unit and conventional care, respectively. The mean time-to-treatment window was significantly shorter among the patients treated in mobile stroke unit compared to conventional care (62.0 min vs. 75.0 min; p = 0.03, respectively). The pooled analysis of clinical outcome at day 7 indicated that patients treated in mobile stroke unit had 1.46-folds higher likelihood of better clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale 0–2) than those in the hospital (odds ratio: 1.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.306–2.03, p = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference in terms of mortality (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.18, p = 0.80), stroke-related neurological deficits (odds ratio: 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.81–2.32, p = 0.24), and other serious adverse events (odds ratio: 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.39–1.20, p = 0.19) among patients treated in mobile stroke unit versus conventional care.

Conclusion

Our results corroborate that patients treated in mobile stroke unit lead to short-term recovery following acute stroke without influencing the mortality rate. Further prospective studies are needed to validate our results.