Support of New Triage Protocol among Acute Stroke Care Providers

Objective: We conducted an online survey to gauge the acceptance of sending acute stroke patients with suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) directly to an endovascular-capable hospital (ECH) even if that means bypassing a closer alteplase-capable hospital (ACH) without endovascular capability. Methods: The survey was composed of two cases of acute stroke, one with cortical symptoms suggestive of LVO and the other without. In each case, responders were asked to choose between triaging to a closer ACH or an ECH that is further away and to provide an opinion regarding the maximum extra travel time they would tolerate if they chose the ECH. The survey was sent electronically to national groups of neurologists, emergency department (ED) physicians, emergency medical service (EMS) directors, and stroke coordinators. Results: There were 320 responders from 44 states, most of them with 10 years or more of experience. Most of the responders, 72.5%, chose ECH for the LVO case, while 56% chose ACH for the non-LVO case. There were marked differences in responses by specialty: neurology strongly supported ECH for LVO and strongly supported ACH for non-LVO, most ED and EMS chose ECH for both cases, and stroke coordinators were the least supportive of bypassing ACH. Almost all groups agreed on 30 min as the acceptable extra transfer time to ECH. Conclusion: Among the survey responders, there is a broad acceptance of the idea of bypassing ACH and going straight to ECH when LVO is suspected; however, there is less agreement on triaging patients with non-LVO stroke.
Intervent Neurol 2018;7:241–245

http://ift.tt/2tMZOfN