Abstract TP304: Use, Time Delay and Outcomes of the Drip-and-Ship Thrombolysis Paradigm for Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke
Introduction: The utilization of drip-and-ship thrombolysis paradigm, clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with the paradigm could vary with regional stroke care system.
Hypothesis: We hypothesized that clinical characteristics and functional outcomes of patients treated with drip-and-ship paradigm would be different from those of patients treated via direct visit.
Methods: From a multicenter stroke registry, we identified acute ischemic stroke patients treated with tPA who arrived hospital within 6 hours from the symptom onset. Functional outcomes at three months after the stroke were classified as favorable (modified Rankin Scale score [mRS] 0 to 1) or unfavorable (mRS 2-6). Using multivariable analysis, we compared the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 3 months and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages (SICH) between patients treated with drip-and-ship paradigm and those treated via direct visit.
Results: Among 1,843 patients who met the eligible criteria, 244 patients (13.2%; 95% CI, 11.7-14.9) were treated using drip-and-ship paradigm. Patients treated with drip-and-ship paradigm had shorter onset to needle time compared with patients treated via direct visit (median[IQR], 110 minutes[79-150] vs 126 minutes[90-173], p<0.001). After multivariable analysis, patients treated with drip-and-ship paradigm had significantly greater risk of unfavorable functional outcome (mRS 2-6) at 3 months after the stroke compared with patients treated via direct visit (OR 2.15; 95% CI, 1.50-3.08; p < 0.001). SICH also occurred more frequently in patients treated with drip-and-ship paradigm (OR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.02-3.12; p =0.04). Of 1,843 patients, 509 patients (27.6%, 71 patients with drip-and-ship paradigm and 438 patients via direct visit) received subsequent endovascular recanalization therapy. The use of drip-and-ship paradigm caused approximately 105 minute delay in onset to groin puncture time compared with those treated via direct visit (305 minutes[260-345] vs 200 minutes[155-245], p<0.001).
Conclusions: Drip-and-ship thrombolysis paradigm was used in less than 15% of patients treated with tPA, and use of the paradigm caused a significant delay in onset to groin puncture time for endovascular therapy.
Author Disclosures: J. Choi: None. M. Park: None. J. Lee: None. T. Park: None. Y. Cho: None. K. Hong: None. J. Park: None. K. Kang: None. K. Lee: None. S. Lee: None. Y. Ko: None. J. Lee: None. K. Choi: None. M. Oh: None. K. Yu: None. B. Lee: None. J. Cha: None. D. Kim: None. J. Lee: None. D. Kim: None. B. Kim: None. H. Bae: None.
- © 2016 by American Heart Association, Inc.