Drip-and-ship thrombolytic treatment paradigm among acute ischemic stroke patients in the United States.
ABSTRACT To provide a national assessment of thrombolytic administration using drip-and-ship treatment paradigm.
Patients treated with the drip-and-ship paradigm among all acute ischemic stroke patients treated with thrombolytic treatment were identified within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Thrombolytic utilization, patterns of referral, comparative in-hospital outcomes, and hospitalization charges related to drip-and-ship paradigm were determined. All the in-hospital outcomes were analyzed after adjusting for potential confounders using multivariate analysis.
Of the 22 243 ischemic stroke patients who received thrombolytic treatment, 4474 patients (17%) were treated using drip-and-ship paradigm. Of these 4474 patients, 81% were referred to urban teaching hospitals for additional care, and 7% of them received follow-up endovascular treatment. States with a higher proportion of patients treated using the drip-and-ship paradigm had higher rates of overall thrombolytic utilization (5.4% versus 3.3%; P<0.001). The rate of home discharge/self-care was significantly higher in patients treated with drip-and-ship paradigm compared with those who received thrombolytics through primary emergency department arrival in the multivariate analysis (OR, 1.198; 95% CI, 1.019-1.409; P=0.0286).
One of every 6 thrombolytic-treated patients in United States is treated using drip-and-ship paradigm. States with the highest proportion of drip-and-ship cases were also the states with the highest thrombolytic utilization.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The three randomised controlled trials, Interventional Management of Stroke III (IMS3), Mechanical Retrieval and Revascularization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE) and Synthesis Expanasion: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Intra-Arterial Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischaemic Stroke (SYNTHESIS EXP) showed no significant difference in clinical outcomes comparing intra-arterial (IA) therapy with intravenous thrombolysis. This article will explore the reasons for failure to show superiority of IA therapy.05/2014; 2(3):97-104. DOI:10.1159/000356087This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched formatRG Format enables you to read in context with side-by-side figures, citations, and feedback from experts in your field.
- SourceAvailable from: Karen C Albright[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Only 3% to 5% of patients with acute ischemic stroke receive intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (r-tPA) and <1% receive endovascular therapy. We describe access of the US population to all facilities that actually provide intravenous r-tPA or endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke.Stroke 08/2014; 45(10). DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006293 · 6.02 Impact Factor
- Journal of vascular and interventional neurology 06/2014; 7(2):34-40.