ABSTRACT
Objective:To investigate the in-hospital diagnosis and treatment time for patients with acute ischemic stroke in Hebei Province.Methods:The data of in-hospital diagnosis and treatment of acute ischemic stroke in Hebei Province were collected and analyzed, and then compared with the NINDS recommended time. Methods The data of in-hospital diagnosis and treatment of acute ischemic stroke in Hebei Province were collected and analyzed, and then compared with the NINDS recommended time.Results:The median time in hospital diagnosis and treatment was significantly longer than the NINDS recommended time (104 min vs. 60 min, P<0.001). The median time from completing the cranial CT scan to getting the CT report differed significantly to the NINDS recommended time (30 min vs. 20 min, P<0.001). The median time from getting the CT report to obtaining treatment was 43 min, which was significantly longer than the NINDS recommended 15 min ( P<0.001). The median time of in-hospital diagnosis and treatment for emergency service system (EMS) patients was 101 min, which was shorter than that for non-EMS patients (104 min, P=0.01). The median time of in-hospital diagnosis and treatment in Tertiary Hospital was 105 min, which was significantly longer than that in Secondary Hospital 99 min, ( P<0.05). Conclusions:The in-hospital emergency treatment delay in Hebei Province was relatively serious for patients with acute ischemic stroke. The time between obtaining the head CT report to beginning thrombolytic therapy is the most important factor in hospital delay. EMS can shorten in-hospital delay for acute ischemic stroke. Compared with the tertiary hospital, the secondary hospital has shorter in-hospital delay time.
ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the application of emergency medical service (EMS) of Hebei Province and preliminarily analyze its value in the treatment of acute stroke patients.Methods We collected data of 4 147 acute stroke patients admitted to the Emergency Department between January 2016 and December 2016 in 49 hospitals of Hebei Province.Patients were divided into the EMS group and non-EMS group according to the pattern of arriving hospital.The general data,the onset-to-door time,doorto-treatment time,thrombolytic rate,length of hospital stay and prognosis were compared between the two groups.LSD-t test,Mann-Whitney U or Chi-squared test or Fisher exact test was used for statistical analysis as appropriate.Results A total of 4 147 acute stroke patients were enrolled,including 589 patients (14.2％) with hemorrhagic stroke and 3 558 patients (85.8％) with ischemic stroke.A total of 750 patients (18.1％) were admitted to the hospital by EMS.The proportion of patients with hemorrhagic stroke who used EMS was higher than that of ischemic stroke (33.4％ vs 15.5％,P＜0.01).The median onset-to-foor time in the EMS group was less than that in the non-EMS group (1.75 h vs 4.57 h,P＜0.01).The median time of onset-to-door time within 1 h in the EMS group was longer than that of the non-EMS group (0.67 h vs 0.53 h,P＜0.01).There was no significant difference between the two groups in 1-＜2 h period and 2-＜3 h period.The median time of onset-to-door time of ≥ 3 h in the EMS group was shorter than that of the non-EMS group (5.0 h vs 9.47 h,P＜0.01).In the EMS group,the proportion of patients with onset-to-door time ＜3 h was higher than that of the non-EMS group (66.13％ vs 57.44％,P＜0.01).Compared with the non-EMS group,the time of door-to-treatment time was much shorter in the EMS group (87 min vs 101 min,P＜0.01).The length of hospital stay in the EMS group was shorter than that of the non-EMS group [11 (7,14) days vs 12 (6,16) days,P＜0.01].In the EMS group,15.9％ patients received thrombolytic therapy,whereas only 11.0％ patients in the non-EMS group received this therapy (P=0.001).In the EMS group,88.8％ patients achieved more favorable outcomes at discharge,which was higher than that in the non-EMS group (85.5％,P=0.02).Conclusions EMS is considered as effective in shortening onset-to-door time,reducing door-to-treatment time,improving thrombolytic rate,reducing hospitalization days,and enhancing the prognosis of acute stroke patients.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To investigate the application of emergency medical service (EMS) of Hebei Province and preliminarily analyze its value in the treatment of acute stroke patients.@*Methods@#We collected data of 4 147 acute stroke patients admitted to the Emergency Department between January 2016 and December 2016 in 49 hospitals of Hebei Province. Patients were divided into the EMS group and non-EMS group according to the pattern of arriving hospital. The general data, the onset-to-door time, door-to-treatment time, thrombolytic rate, length of hospital stay and prognosis were compared between the two groups. LSD-t test, Mann-Whitney U or Chi-squared test or Fisher exact test was used for statistical analysis as appropriate.@*Results@#A total of 4 147 acute stroke patients were enrolled, including 589 patients (14.2%) with hemorrhagic stroke and 3 558 patients (85.8%) with ischemic stroke. A total of 750 patients (18.1%) were admitted to the hospital by EMS. The proportion of patients with hemorrhagic stroke who used EMS was higher than that of ischemic stroke (33.4% vs 15.5%, P<0.01). The median onset-to-foor time in the EMS group was less than that in the non-EMS group (1.75 h vs 4.57 h, P<0.01). The median time of onset-to-door time within 1 h in the EMS group was longer than that of the non-EMS group (0.67 h vs 0.53 h, P<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in 1-<2 h period and 2-<3 h period. The median time of onset-to-door time of ≥3 h in the EMS group was shorter than that of the non-EMS group (5.0 h vs 9.47 h, P<0.01). In the EMS group, the proportion of patients with onset-to-door time <3 h was higher than that of the non-EMS group (66.13% vs 57.44%, P<0.01). Compared with the non-EMS group, the time of door-to-treatment time was much shorter in the EMS group (87 min vs 101 min, P<0.01). The length of hospital stay in the EMS group was shorter than that of the non-EMS group [11 (7,14) days vs 12 (6,16) days, P<0.01]. In the EMS group, 15.9% patients received thrombolytic therapy, whereas only 11.0% patients in the non-EMS group received this therapy (P=0.001). In the EMS group, 88.8% patients achieved more favorable outcomes at discharge, which was higher than that in the non-EMS group (85.5%, P=0.02).@*Conclusions@#EMS is considered as effective in shortening onset-to-door time, reducing door-to-treatment time, improving thrombolytic rate, reducing hospitalization days, and enhancing the prognosis of acute stroke patients.