ArticleCJEM2024
Evaluation of a prehospital endovascular therapy stroke bypass program.
Article in CJEM, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrehospital stroke endovascular therapy bypass transports patients with suspected large vessel occlusion directly to an endovascular therapy capable center. Our objective was to determine if an endovascular therapy bypass protocol improved access to stroke treatments. Secondary objectives were to determine safety, effectiveness, and rate of subsequent interfacility transfers.
methodsEndovascular therapy bypass in 2018 was implemented in Eastern Ontario, for patients with a Los-Angeles-Motor-Scale ≥ 4 (positive large vessel occlusion screen) with a 90-min transport time if < 6 h from last seen well. A before-after health record review was conducted from Dec 1, 2017 to Nov 30, 2019. A piloted data form was used to extract demographics, times, primary outcomes (endovascular therapy and intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) rate), and secondary outcomes (redirect to closer hospital, airway intervention, and subsequent interfacility transfer). We present descriptive statistics and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from multivariable logistic regression.
resultsWe included 379 stroke patients (165 pre and 214 post-implementation). The endovascular therapy rate between groups was similar (14.1% vs 15.1%). The bypass had an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.54-1.78) for receiving endovascular therapy. IV tPA was given to 25.4% of patients pre vs 27.4% post-implementation (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65-1.74). No patients became unstable during transport, only one patient had an intubation attempt. The inappropriate bypass (false positive) rate was 12.7% pre vs 12.8% post-implementation (positive predictive value 87%). The bypass protocol had an OR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.58-1.95) for subsequent interfacility transfer with a mean of 2.7 h at the community site before transfer.
conclusionsEndovascular therapy stroke bypass with 90-min transport radius and Los-Angeles-Motor-Scale ≥ 4 was safe and well executed by paramedics. Our study did not show any difference in endovascular therapy rate from its implementation. The IV tPA rate was similar between groups despite potentially bypassing thrombolysis capable centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38700785What 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.