Abstract T P19: “Futile” Interhospital Transfer for Endovascular Recanalization Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke. The Madrid Stroke Network
Objectives: The complexity of endovascular revascularization treatment (ERT) in acute ischemic stroke (IS) and the small number of patients eligible for that treatment justifies the development of Stroke Center networks with interhospital transfer of eligible patients. But it is possible that this approach generate “futile“ transfers (i.e. shift of patients who finally do not receive ET) generating unnecessary costs. Our aim is to analyze the frequency of “futile” transfers, the reasons for rejection for ERT and to identify the possible associated factors.
Methods: We analyzed a prospective registry of ERT from a Stroke Network integrated by three hospitals with facilities for ERT for acute stroke patients. These hospitals share a common stroke protocol and have established a weekly rotatory shift with inter-hospital transference to the on-call center for ERT in those patients in whom this therapy is indicated, both primarily, after completing IV thrombolysis or in patients attended in outside hospitals (drip and shift). We analyzed: demographic data, vascular risk factors, stroke severity, frequency of prior intravenous thrombolysis, time from stroke onset and reasons for rejection. Study period: 1/02/2012 to 07/05/2013.
Results: ERT protocol was activated in 199 patients, receiving ERT 129 (64.8%). 120 (60.3%) patients required inter-hospital transfer, among them 50 (41%) were not finally treated (futile transfer). These were more often male (74.1% vs. 25.9%, P = 0.04), with no differences in age, vascular risk factors, time-lapse from stroke onset or delay of inter-hospital transfer, baseline NIHSS, baseline ASPECTS or rate of prior intravenous thrombolysis between transferred patients treated with ERT and those non-treated. Reasons for rejection were: clinical improvement (16%), arterial recanalization (24%), clinical deterioration (8%); ASPECTS <7 in the 2nd TC (20%), absence of mismatch (20%); delay in shipment (2%), revocation of consent (1%).
Conclusions: 40% of shipments for ERT are “futile”. None of the baseline patient characteristics predict this fact, being arterial recanalization and findings in a second imaging test done in the receiving hospital the main reasons for ERT rejection.
Author Disclosures: B. Fuentes: None. M. Alonso de Leciñana: None. A. Ximenez-Carrillo: None. P. Martínez-Sánchez: None. A. Cruz-Culebras: None. G. Zapata: None. G. Ruiz-Ares: None. J. Masjuan: None. J. Vivancos: None. E. Diez-Tejedor: None.
- © 2014 by American Heart Association, Inc.