Association Between Stroke Center Hospitalization for Acute Ischemic Stroke and Mortality

Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt St, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 01/2011; 305(4):373-80. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.22
Source: PubMed


Although stroke centers are widely accepted and supported, little is known about their effect on patient outcomes.
To examine the association between admission to stroke centers for acute ischemic stroke and mortality.
Observational study using data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. We compared mortality for patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke (n = 30,947) between 2005 and 2006 at designated stroke centers and nondesignated hospitals using differential distance to hospitals as an instrumental variable to adjust for potential prehospital selection bias. Patients were followed up for mortality for 1 year after the index hospitalization through 2007. To assess whether our findings were specific to stroke, we also compared mortality for patients admitted with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n = 39,409) or acute myocardial infarction (n = 40,024) at designated stroke centers and nondesignated hospitals.
Thirty-day all-cause mortality.
Among 30,947 patients with acute ischemic stroke, 15,297 (49.4%) were admitted to designated stroke centers. Using the instrumental variable analysis, admission to designated stroke centers was associated with lower 30-day all-cause mortality (10.1% vs 12.5%; adjusted mortality difference, -2.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6% to -1.4%; P < .001) and greater use of thrombolytic therapy (4.8% vs 1.7%; adjusted difference, 2.2%; 95% CI, 1.6% to 2.8%; P < .001). Differences in mortality also were observed at 1-day, 7-day, and 1-year follow-up. The outcome differences were specific for stroke, as stroke centers and nondesignated hospitals had similar 30-day all-cause mortality rates among those with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (5.0% vs 5.8%; adjusted mortality difference, +0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 1.0%; P = .50) or acute myocardial infarction (10.5% vs 12.7%; adjusted mortality difference, +0.1%; 95% CI, -0.9% to 1.1%; P = .83).
Among patients with acute ischemic stroke, admission to a designated stroke center was associated with modestly lower mortality and more frequent use of thrombolytic therapy.

Full-text preview

Available from:
    • "Organized systems of stroke care [32] and dedicated stroke units have both been shown to improve mortality and functional outcomes. Stroke center care is associated with decreased 1-year mortality of 11% to 38% [33] [34] [35]. Improved outcomes have also been demonstrated when patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are transferred to a center capable of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regionalization of emergency medical care aims to provide consistent and efficient high-quality care leading to optimal clinical outcomes by matching patient needs with appropriate resources at a network of hospitals. Regionalized care has been shown to improve outcomes in trauma, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac arrest, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. In rural areas, effective regionalization often requires interhospital transfer. The decision to transfer is complex and includes such factors as capabilities of the presenting hospital; capacity at the receiving hospital; and financial, geographic, and patient-preference considerations. Although transfer to a comprehensive center has proven benefits for some conditions, the transfer process is not without risk. These risks include clinical deterioration, limited resource availability during transport, vehicular crashes, time delays for time-sensitive care, poor communication between providers, and neglect of patient preferences. This article reviews the transfer decision, financial implications, risks, and considerations for patients undergoing rural interhospital transfer. We identify several strategies that should be considered for development of the regionalized emergency health care system of the future and identify areas where further research is necessary. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    No preview · Article · May 2015 · American Journal of Emergency Medicine
  • Source
    • "Hospital mortality and readmission rates are important indicators of hospital outcomes that are frequently used to assess and publicise hospital and physician performance. They are also often used in health services research to assess issues such as the impact of service organisation (Coyte et al., 2000; Evans and Kim, 2006; Ho and Hamilton, 2000; Lorch et al., 2010), the relationship between hospital inputs and outcomes (Heggestad, 2002; Schreyogg and Stargardt, 2010), the effect of introducing new policies (Evans et al., 2008) and the impact of new technologies (Xian et al., 2011). The idea behind outcome-based quality indicators such as hospital mortality or readmission rates is that, if appropriate adjustment is made for patient case-mix and external environmental factors, then variations in reported levels of such outcome-based quality indicators are likely to be driven by differences in the (unobservable ) quality of hospital services, as reflected in the processes of hospital care and service organisation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used as signals of hospital performance and a basis for hospital reimbursement. However, their interpretation may be complicated by differential patient survival rates. If patient characteristics are not perfectly observable and hospitals differ in their mortality rates, then hospitals with low mortality rates are likely to have a larger share of un-observably sicker patients at risk of a readmission. Their performance on readmissions will then be underestimated. We examine hospitals' performance relaxing the assumption of independence between mortality and readmissions implicitly adopted in many empirical applications. We use data from the Hospital Episode Statistics on emergency admissions for fractured hip in 290,000 patients aged 65 and over from 2003 to 2008 in England. We find evidence of sample selection bias that affects inference from traditional models. We use a bivariate sample selection model to allow for the selection process and the dichotomous nature of the outcome variables.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2013 · Journal of Health Economics
  • Source
    • "Added Value and Feasibility. Finally, organized stroke care adds value in that it reduces the following risks associated with stroke: death by 14%, death or institutionalized care by 18%, and death or dependency by 18%.30-33 Importantly, in the US it has been shown that the possibility of establishing a primary stroke center is both desirable and reachable as the presence of resources needed to achieve primary stroke center status is present in an estimated over 40% of US hospitals. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the United States (US) stroke care has undergone a remarkable transformation in the past decades at several levels. At the clinical level, randomized trials have paved the way for many new stroke preventives, and recently, several new mechanical clot retrieval devices for acute stroke treatment have been cleared for use in practice by the US Federal Drug Administration. Furthermore, in the mid 1990s we witnessed regulatory approval of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for administration in acute ischemic stroke. In the domain of organization of medical care and delivery of health services, stroke has transitioned from a disease dominated by neurologic consultation services only to one managed by vascular neurologists in geographical stroke units, stroke teams and care pathways, primary stroke center certification according to The Joint Commission, and most recently comprehensive stroke center designation under the aegis of The Joint Commission. Many organizations in the US have been involved to enhance stroke care. To name a few, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Brain Attack Coalition, and National Stroke Association have been on the forefront of this movement. Additionally, governmental initiatives by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and legislative initiatives such as the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry program have paved the way to focus on stroke prevention, acute treatment and quality improvement. In this invited review, we discuss a brief history of organized stroke care in the United States, evidence to support the value of primary and comprehensive stroke centers, and the certification criteria and process to become a primary or comprehensive stroke center.
    Full-text · Article · May 2013
Show more