Patient Outcomes With Endovascular Embolectomy Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke A Study of the National Inpatient Sample: 2006 to 2008
ABSTRACT Maturing techniques have spurred widespread implementation of endovascular embolectomy therapy for ischemic stroke. We evaluated a large administrative database to determine outcomes in patients treated with endovascular embolectomy in the general population.
Using the National Inpatient Sample, we evaluated outcomes of patients treated for acute ischemic stroke in the United States from 2006 to 2008. Patients who had an ischemic stroke and underwent endovascular clot retrieval were identified. Morbidity, defined as "discharge to long-term facility," and mortality were evaluated as a function of patient age and of concomitant thrombolytic agent administration.
For 2006 to 2008, a total of 3864 patients received endovascular clot retrieval with 266 (6.9%) patients in 2006, 800 (20.7) patients in 2007, and 2798 (72.4%) patients in 2008. The discharge to a long-term facility rate was 51.3% (1983 of 3864). The in-hospital mortality rate was 24.3% (940 of 3864). For patients <65 years old, the rate of in-hospital death was 17.1% (283 of 1658) as compared with a rate of 29.7% (656 of 2206) for patients ≥65 years old (P<0.0001). The rate of discharge to a long-term facility was 47.6% (789 of 1658) for patients <65 years old and 54.1% (1193 of 2206) for patients ≥65 years old (P<0.0001). The rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 15.5% without concomitant thrombolysis and 20.0% with concomitant thrombolysis (P=0.0009).
Rates of morbidity and mortality remain high for patients with acute stroke, even in the setting of endovascular embolectomy. Advanced age portends a worse outcome and patients treated with concomitant use of thrombolytic agent had higher rates of intracranial hemorrhage than those without such therapy.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Acute ischemic stroke continues to be one of the leading causes of disability and death and is a financial burden to an already taxed health care system. Much research and investigation has been carried out over the past decade on various recanalization devices aimed at restoring cerebral blood flow. Despite the rapidly improving technical abilities of these devices, it has been difficult to demonstrate corresponding improved clinical outcomes. This article will describe the application of the most recent generation of these devices and briefly discuss the ongoing discrepancy between these technical achievements and stroke outcomes.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal 04/2014; 10(2):105-110. DOI:10.14797/mdcj-10-2-105
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We sought to assess the geographic proximity of patients with stroke in California to centers that performed specific threshold volumes of mechanical embolectomy procedures each year. We identified all patients who were hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke at all nonfederal acute care hospitals in California from 2009 to 2010, and all hospitals that performed any mechanical embolectomy procedures by case volume during the same period, using nonpublic data from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. We computed geographic service areas around each hospital on the basis of prespecified ground transport distance thresholds. We then calculated the proportion of hospitalized patients with stroke who lived within service areas for centers that performed a low volume and high volume of mechanical embolectomy procedures each year. During the 2-year study period, 15% (53/360) of hospitals performed at least 1 mechanical embolectomy for acute stroke, but only 19% (10/53) performed >10 cases per year. Most hospitalized patients with stroke (94%) lived within a 2-hour transport time (65 miles) to a hospital that performed ≥1 procedure during the 2-year period. Approximately 93% of the patients with stroke who received mechanical embolectomy lived within 20 miles from an embolectomy-capable hospital compared with 7% of those who lived >20 miles. In California, most patients with stroke lived within reasonable ground transport distances from centers that performed ≥1 mechanical embolectomy in a 2-year period. The probability of receiving mechanical embolectomy for acute ischemic stroke was associated with living in close geographic proximity to these hospitals. © 2015 The Authors.Stroke 02/2015; DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007735 · 6.02 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives: To compare the outcomes of IV thrombolytics (tissue plasminogen activator or tPA) with endovascular treatment (intra-arterial tPA +/- mechanical thrombectomy) in dialysis patients who suffered from acute ischemic stroke. Study design: Observational study. Setting and Participants: Data analysis from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS 2005-2010) including dialysis patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, either treated with IV thrombolytics or endovascular treatment. Outcomes: Baseline characteristics, in-hospital complications, and discharge outcomes were compared between the two groups. We determined the effect of endovascular treatment on in-hospital mortality, disability at discharge, and post-thrombolytic intracerebral hemorrhages (ICH) after adjusting for potential confounders using multivariate analysis. Results: Of the 2 313 dialysis patients with ischemic stroke, 1 398 (60%) received IV thrombolytics and 915 (40%) were treated with endovascular treatment. The in-hospital mortality rate and moderate-to-severe disability were lower in dialysis patients receiving endovascular treatment (7.6% vs. 14.5% p = 0.04) and (30% vs. 52% p = <.0001), respectively. After adjusting for age, gender, and potential confounders, endovascular treatment was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) and moderate-to-severe disability (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5). Conclusions: The odds of both in-hospital mortality and moderate to severe disability were lower with endovascular treatment in dialysis patients. Such data support the preferential use of endovascular treatment in this patient population.The International journal of artificial organs 09/2014; DOI:10.5301/ijao.5000349 · 1.45 Impact Factor