Prehospital Stroke Management Optimized by Use of Clinical Scoring vs Mobile Stroke Unit for Triage of Patients with Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Stefan A. Helwig, Andreas Ragoschke-Schumm, Lenka Schwindling, Michael Kettner, Safwan Roumia, Johann Kulikovski, Isabel Keller, Matthias Manitz, Daniel Martens, Daniel Grün, Silke Walter, Martin Lesmeister, Kira Ewen, Jannik Brand, Mathias Fousse, Jil Kauffmann, Valerie C. Zimmer, Shrey Mathur, Thomas Bertsch, Jürgen GuldnerAchim Magull-Seltenreich, Andreas Binder, Elmar Spüntrup, Anastasios Chatzikonstantinou, Oliver Adam, Kai Kronfeld, Yang Liu, Christian Ruckes, Helmut Schumacher, Iris Q. Grunwald, Umut Yilmaz, Thomas Schlechtriemen, Wolfgang Reith, Klaus Fassbender

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 ≥4) or management in an MSU (an ambulance with vascular imaging, point-of-care laboratory, and telecommunication capabilities).

Main Outcomes and Measures: The 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 Relevance: Whereas 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1484-1492
Number of pages9
JournalJAMA Neurology
Volume76
Issue number12
Early online date3 Sep 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2019

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Prehospital Stroke Management Optimized by Use of Clinical Scoring vs Mobile Stroke Unit for Triage of Patients with Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this