Patient-reported factors associated with early arrival for stroke treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Timely evaluation and initiation of treatment is the key for improving stroke outcomes, although minimizing the time from symptom onset to the first contact with healthcare professionals remains a challenge. We aimed to identify patient-related factors associated with early hospital arrival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, we included patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack admitted directly to one of two noncomprehensive stroke units or transferred to the units from comprehensive stroke centers in the Capital Region of Denmark. Patient-reported factors associated with early hospital arrival were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, education, living arrangement, brain location of the stroke, stroke severity, patient-perceived symptom severity, history of prior stroke, stroke risk factors, and knowledge of stroke symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 479 patients with acute stroke were included (median age 74 (25th-75th percentile, 64-80), 40% women), of whom 46.4% arrived within 180 min of symptom onset. Factors associated with early hospital arrival were patients or bystanders choosing emergency medical service (EMS) for the first contact with a medical professional (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 3.41; 95% confidence interval, CI [1.57, 7.35]) or the patient's perceived symptom severity above the median score of 25 on a 100-point verbal scale (adjusted OR, 2.44; 95% CI [1.57, 3.82]). Living alone reduced the likelihood of early arrival (adjusted OR, 0.53; 95% CI [0.33, 0.86]). CONCLUSIONS: Only when patients perceived symptoms as severe or when EMS was selected as the first contact, early arrival for stroke treatment was ensured.

Translational challenges of remote ischemic conditioning in ischemic stroke - a systematic review.

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has well-established cardioprotective effects in preclinical studies and promising results in preclinical stroke research. Effective translation from preclinical studies to clinical trials has yet to be accomplished, perhaps because of the use of multiple applications of RIC (e.g., pre-, per-, or post-conditioning) in preclinical studies by both invasive and non-invasive protocols, some of which not clinically applicable. Our systematic review conformed to PRISMA guidelines and addressed differences in clinically relevant RIC applications and outcomes between preclinical and clinical studies. We retrieved a total of 30 studies (8 human; 22 animal) that met the inclusion criteria of testing clinically relevant procedures; namely, non-invasive and per- or post-conditioning protocols. Per-conditioning was applied in 6 animal and 3 human studies, post-conditioning was applied in 16 animal and 5 human studies, and both conditioning methods were applied in 2 animal studies. Application of RIC varied between human and animal studies regarding initiation, duration, repetition, and number of limbs included. Study designs did not systematically apply blinding, randomization, or placebo controls. On only a few occasions did preclinical studies include animals with clinically relevant comorbidities. Clinical trials were challenged by not completing the intended number of RIC cycles or addressing this deficit in the data analysis. Consistency and transferability of methods used for positive animal studies and subsequent human studies are essential for the optimal translation of results. Consensus on preclinical and clinical RIC procedures should be reached for a full understanding of the possible beneficial effects of RIC treatment in stroke.