No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) is an established 10-point quantitative topographic computed tomography scan score to assess early ischemic changes. We performed a non-inferiority trial between the e-ASPECTS software and neuroradiologists in scoring ASPECTS on non-contrast enhanced computed tomography images of acute ischemic stroke patients. Methods In this multicenter study, e-ASPECTS and three independent neuroradiologists retrospectively and blindly assessed baseline non-contrast enhanced computed tomography images of 132 patients with acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke. Follow-up scans served as ground truth to determine the definite area of infarction. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for region- and score-based analysis, receiver-operating characteristic curves, Bland-Altman plots and Matthews correlation coefficients relative to the ground truth were calculated and comparisons were made between neuroradiologists and different pre-specified e-ASPECTS operating points. The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% for both sensitivity and specificity on region-based analysis. Results In total 2640 (132 patients × 20 regions per patient) ASPECTS regions were scored. Mean time from onset to baseline computed tomography was 146 ± 124 min and median NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was 11 (6-17, interquartile range). Median ASPECTS for ground truth on follow-up imaging was 8 (6.5-9, interquartile range). In the region-based analysis, two e-ASPECTS operating points (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 44%, 93%, 87% and 44%, 91%, 85%) were statistically non-inferior to all three neuroradiologists (all p-values <0.003). Both Matthews correlation coefficients for e-ASPECTS were higher (0.36 and 0.34) than those of all neuroradiologists (0.32, 0.31, and 0.3). Conclusions e-ASPECTS was non-inferior to three neuroradiologists in scoring ASPECTS on non-contrast enhanced computed tomography images of acute stroke patients.

IMPORTANCE Transferring patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to hospitals not providing interventional treatment options is an unresolved medical problem. OBJECTIVE To determine how optimized prehospital management (OPM) based on use of the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS) compares with management in a Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) in accurately triaging patients to the appropriate hospital with (comprehensive stroke center [CSC]) or without (primary stroke center [PSC]) interventional treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this randomized multicenter trial with 3-month follow-up, patients were assigned week-wise to one of the pathways between June 15, 2015, and November 15, 2017, in 2 regions of Saarland, Germany; 708 of 824 suspected stroke patients did not meet inclusion criteria, resulting in a study population of 116 adult patients. INTERVENTIONS Patients received either OPM based on a standard operating procedure that included the use of the LAMS (cut point Ն4) or management in an MSU (an ambulance with vascular imaging, point-of-care laboratory, and telecommunication capabilities). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was the proportion of patients accurately triaged to either CSCs (LVO, ICH) or PSCs (others).RESULTS A predefined interim analysis was performed after 116 patients of the planned 232 patients had been enrolled. Of these, 53 were included in the OPM group (67.9% women; mean [SD] age, 74 [11] years) and 63 in the MSU group (57.1% women; mean [SD] age, 75 [11] years). The primary end point, an accurate triage decision, was reached for 37 of 53 patients (69.8%) in the OPM group and for 63 of 63 patients (100%) in the MSU group (difference, 30.2%; 95% CI, 17.8%-42.5%; P < .001). Whereas 7 of 17 OPM patients (41.2%) with LVO or ICH required secondary transfers from a PSC to a CSC, none of the 11 MSU patients (0%) required such transfers (difference, 41.2%; 95% CI, 17.8%-64.6%; P = .02). The LAMS at a cut point of 4 or higher led to an accurate diagnosis of LVO or ICH for 13 of 17 patients (76.5%; 6 triaged to a CSC) and of LVO selectively for 7 of 9 patients (77.8%; 2 triaged to a CSC). Stroke management metrics were better in the MSU group, although patient outcomes were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEWhereas prehospital management optimized by LAMS allows accurate triage decisions for approximately 70% of patients, MSU-based management enables accurate triage decisions for 100%. Depending on the specific health care environment considered, both approaches are potentially valuable in triaging stroke patients.

No abstract

BackgroundEarly treatment with rt-PA is critical for favorable outcome of acute stroke. However, only a very small proportion of stroke patients receive this treatment, as most arrive at hospital too late to be eligible for rt-PA therapy.Methods and FindingsWe developed a “Mobile Stroke Unit”, consisting of an ambulance equipped with computed tomography, a point-of-care laboratory system for complete stroke laboratory work-up, and telemedicine capabilities for contact with hospital experts, to achieve delivery of etiology-specific and guideline-adherent stroke treatment at the site of the emergency, well before arrival at the hospital. In a departure from current practice, stroke patients could be differentially treated according to their ischemic or hemorrhagic etiology even in the prehospital phase of stroke management. Immediate diagnosis of cerebral ischemia and exclusion of thrombolysis contraindications enabled us to perform prehospital rt-PA thrombolysis as bridging to later intra-arterial recanalization in one patient. In a complementary patient with cerebral hemorrhage, prehospital diagnosis allowed immediate initiation of hemorrhage-specific blood pressure management and telemedicine consultation regarding surgery. Call-to-therapy-decision times were 35 minutes.ConclusionThis preliminary study proves the feasibility of guideline-adherent, etiology-specific and causal treatment of acute stroke directly at the emergency site.

Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.