ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2021
Impacts of in-hospital workflow on functional outcome in stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-performance in-hospital workflow may save time and improve the efficacy of thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. However, the optimal in-hospital workflow is far from being formulated, and the current models varied distinctly among centers. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of in-hospital workflow on functional outcomes after thrombectomy. Patients were enrolled from a multi-center registry program in China. Based on in-hospital managing procedure and personnel involved, two workflow models, neurologist-dominant and non-neurologist-dominant, were identified in the participating centers. Favorable outcome was defined as a mRS score of ≤ 2 at 90 days of stroke onset. After patients being matched with propensity score matching (PSM) method, ratios of favorable outcomes and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) were compared between patients with different workflow models. Of the 632 enrolled patients, 543 (85.9%) were treated with neurologist-dominant and 89 (14.1%) with non-neurologist-dominant model. 88 patients with neurologist-dominant model and 88 patients with non-neurologist-dominant model were matched with PSM. For the matched patients, no significant differences concerning the ratios of successful recanalization (92.0% vs 87.5%, P = 0.45), sICH (17.0% vs 14.8%, P = 0.85), favorable outcome (42.0% vs 42.0%, P = 1.00) were detected between patients with neurologist-dominant model and those with non-neurologist-dominant model. Patients with neurologist-dominant model had shorter door to puncture time (124 (86-172) vs 156 (120-215), P = 0.005), fewer passes of retriever (2 (1-3) vs 2 (1-4), P = 0.04), lower rate of > 3 passes (11.4% vs 28.4%, P = 0.004), and lower incidence of asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage rate (27.3% vs 43.2%, P = 0.045). Although the neurologist-dominant model may decrease in-hospital delay and risk of asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, workflow models may not influence the functional outcome significantly after thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32524517What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.