Network Optimization - Ep.1/2
Current options to expanding thrombectomy access in your catchment area
Introduction:
Endovascular treatment (EVT) for large vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke has been proven to be highly efficient in reducing disability and may also reduce mortality (at least for basilar artery occlusions). However, several papers have shown that access to EVT is still far from optimal even in highly developed countries with many comprehensive stroke centers. It has been shown that the chance to benefit from thrombectomy is lower for patients living in rural areas or in smaller cities that do not have comprehensive stroke centers. Indeed, the farer away one is from a comprehensive stroke center the higher the likelihood that one will not be eligible for endovascular treatment and the higher the likelihood that a stroke victim will remain with important disability. Given this data several options have been explored to reduce the inequality of access to treatment in several regions. This is a quick review of potential options to expand thrombectomy access in your region.
Mothership vs drip-ship models [1]:
2.To
select these patients using a validated pre-hospital scale to identify
potential LVO stroke is recommended.
3.When
travel times to the comprehensive stroke centers are greater than 60 min,
there is not enough evidence to choose between the two options. The
RACECAT study was negative, patients delivered at local primary hospitals
had a higher chance of receiving tPA (60.4% vs. 47.5%) and 16% recanalized
by the time they arrived in the EVT capable center. In contrast patients
randomized directly to the EVT centers had higher rates of thrombectomy
(48.8% vs 39.4%). There were no differences in functional outcome at three
months.
4.However,
interpreting the results of the RACECAT trial depends on the capabilities
of stroke systems of care to deliver fast-efficient and safe acute tPA
treatment and door-in-door-out times to patients with acute ischemic
stroke. When primary stroke centers, are fast in delivering tPA (33 min
door to needle times) and fast in sending eligible patients towards
thrombectomy – drip-and-ship is an option. However, if primary hospitals
are less fast, less safe and incur significant delays by-passing them may
be an option.
Flying doctor model [2]:
1. A non-randomized controlled trial from Germany evaluated the option of flying interventionalists to peripheral centers while the patient is being prepared for thrombectomy in these centers vs. transferring patients from primary stroke centers towards the comprehensive stroke center.
2. Flying
the interventionalist resulted in a 90 min improvement in door to groin
time, however this was not associated with improved outcomes (the study
lacked power to demonstrate differences in outcomes). 
3.This
model may be employed safely in regions that have the necessary
infrastructure
1) readily available helicopter services;
2) readily available angio-suite equipment and anesthesia in primary
stroke centers; However, there is no high-quality evidence that it
improves outcomes and may be associated with additional important costs.
4. Comprehensive
stroke centers aiming to rely on transferring the physician need also to
consider the fact that the interventionalist on duty will not be available
for other procedures during the time associated with the transfer and that
his work-schedule must be blocked during the time he is on shift. This may
require a very big interventional team in the comprehensive stroke
center.
Setting up new thrombectomy capable centers:
2. Local
peripheral radiologists, cardiologists or neurologists may be trained to
perform mechanical thrombectomy in the comprehensive stroke center and
gradually assume the coverage in the peripheral hospital once they are
ready.
3. For
difficult cases the use of digital real-time modern proctoring
technologies may enhance their confidence and may improve outcomes.
Interventionalists from the comprehensive stroke centers may guide them
step by step through-out the procedure using this modern proctoring
systems.
4. When
interventional teams in the comprehensive stroke center permit it, a
regional model may be established in which daily one interventionalists
rotates to a high-volume peripheral center and is ready to perform
thrombectomy during working hours. This may permit the training of the
local team and may offer a chance to patients experiencing a stroke during
daytime.
Conclusion:
Currently tested and available methods to reduce the inequality of access to EVT treatment are heterogenous and depend on each region. There is no perfect model and the only certainty that currently exists is that each region has work-out a model that fits best its geography, economy, population, and medical resources. Obtaining a fast and efficient triage of stroke patients in a region may be the most valuable intervention that a comprehensive stroke center can make to improve outcomes in his catchment area.
1. Pérez de la Ossa, N.; Abilleira, S.; Jovin, T.G.; García-Tornel, Á.; Jimenez, X.; Urra, X.; Cardona, P.; Cocho, D.; Purroy, F.; Serena, J.; et al. Effect of Direct Transportation to Thrombectomy-Capable Center vs Local Stroke Center on Neurological Outcomes in Patients With Suspected Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke in Nonurban Areas: The RACECAT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2022, 327, 1782–1794, doi:10.1001/jama.2022.4404.
2. Hubert, G.J.; Hubert, N.D.; Maegerlein, C.; Kraus, F.; Wiestler, H.; Müller-Barna, P.; Gerdsmeier-Petz, W.; Degenhart, C.; Hohenbichler, K.; Dietrich, D.; et al. Association Between Use of a Flying Intervention Team vs Patient Interhospital Transfer and Time to Endovascular Thrombectomy Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke in Nonurban Germany. JAMA 2022, 327, 1795–1805, doi:10.1001/jama.2022.5948.



