Association Between Use of a Flying Intervention Team vs Patient Interhospital Transfer and Time to Endovascular Thrombectomy Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke in Nonurban Germany.

Importance: The benefit of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke is highly time-dependent, and it is challenging to expedite treatment for patients in remote areas. Objective: To determine whether deployment of a flying intervention team, compared with patient interhospital transfer, is associated with a shorter time to endovascular thrombectomy and improved clinical outcomes for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a nonrandomized controlled intervention study comparing 2 systems of care in alternating weeks. The study was conducted in a nonurban region in Germany including 13 primary telemedicine-assisted stroke centers within a telestroke network. A total of 157 patients with acute ischemic stroke for whom decision to pursue thrombectomy had been made and deployment of flying intervention team or patient interhospital transfer was initiated were enrolled between February 1, 2018, and October 24, 2019. The date of final follow-up was January 31, 2020. Exposures: Deployment of a flying intervention team for EVT in a primary stroke center vs patient interhospital transfer for EVT to a referral center. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time delay from decision to pursue thrombectomy to start of the procedure in minutes. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome after 3 months, determined by the distribution of the modified Rankin Scale score (a disability score ranging from 0 [no deficit] to 6 [death]). Results: Among the 157 patients included (median [IQR] age, 75 [66-80] y; 80 [51%] women), 72 received flying team care and 85 were transferred. EVT was performed in 60 patients (83%) in the flying team group vs 57 (67%) in the transfer group. Median (IQR) time from decision to pursue EVT to start of the procedure was 58 (51-71) minutes in the flying team group and 148 (124-177) minutes in the transfer group (difference, 90 minutes [95% CI, 75-103]; P < .001). There was no significant difference in modified Rankin Scale score after 3 months between patients in the flying team (n = 59) and transfer (n = 57) groups who received EVT (median [IQR] score, 3 [2-6] vs 3 [2-5]; adjusted common odds ratio for less disability, 1.91 [95% CI, 0.96-3.88]; P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: In a nonurban stroke network in Germany, deployment of a flying intervention team to local stroke centers, compared with patient interhospital transfer to referral centers, was significantly associated with shorter time to EVT for patients with acute ischemic stroke. The findings may support consideration of a flying intervention team for some stroke systems of care, although further research is needed to confirm long-term clinical outcomes and to understand applicability to other geographic settings.

Low stroke incidence in the TEMPiS telestroke network during COVID-19 pandemic: Effect of lockdown on thrombolysis and thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic emergency departments have noted a significant decrease in stroke patients. We performed a timely analysis of the Bavarian telestroke TEMPiS "working diagnosis" database. METHODS: Twelve hospitals from the TEMPiS network were selected. Data collected for January through April in years 2017 through 2020 were extracted and analyzed for presumed and definite ischemic stroke (IS), amongst other disorders. In addition, recommendations for intravenous thrombolysis (rtPA) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) were noted and mobility data of the region analyzed. If statistically valid, group-comparison was tested with Fisher's exact test considering unpaired observations and ap-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Upon lockdown in mid-March 2020, we observed a significant reduction in recommendations for rtPA compared to the preceding three years (14.7% [2017-2019] vs. 9.2% [2020], p = 0.0232). Recommendations for EVT were significantly higher in January to mid-March 2020 compared to 2017-2019 (5.4% [2017-2019] vs. 9.3% [2020], p = 0.0013) reflecting its increasing importance. Following the COVID-19 lockdown mid-March 2020 the number of EVT decreased back to levels in 2017-2019 (7.4% [2017-2019] vs. 7.6% [2020], p = 0.1719). Absolute numbers of IS decreased in parallel to mobility data. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced stroke incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic may in part be explained by patient avoidance to seek emergency stroke care and may have an association to population mobility. Increasing mobility may induce a rebound effect and may conflict with a potential second COVID-19 wave. Telemedical networks may be ideal databases to study such effects in near-real time.