English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Endovascular treatment for acute stroke with large vessel occlusion became the mainstay therapy but remains limited due to lack of trainees and specialized centers. To offer this therapeutical option to a vast population, interventional cardiologists joined interdisciplinary stroke teams. Because of limited experience, it remains unclear if the timing of the procedure (i.e., regular hours vs. on-call time) may influence quality, time-effectiveness and outcomes. Purpose To investigate if the timing of the procedure (i.e., regular hours vs. on-call time) significantly influences procedural parameters and outcomes of patients undergoing acute endovascular stroke treatment. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing acute endovascular stroke treatment from 07/2012 – 10/2020, treated by cardiologists, were reviewed. Baseline characteristics, procedural aspects and clinical outcomes were retrospectively collected. Cases were divided into two groups, depending on the timing of the procedure: on-call time (OC, i.e., weekend days, public holidays and documented “call in” of the on-call service) vs. regular hours (RH, i.e., all other procedures) and outcomes subsequently compared. Results One-hundred-thirteen consecutive patients underwent endovascular treatment for acute stroke; of those 77 (68.1%) during regular hours and 36 (31.9%) during on-call time. Patients were in their early 70ies and risk factors such as arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation were evenly distributed. Modified Ranking Scale (mRS) at presentation was 5 in both groups and decreased to 3 at discharge. The anterior circulation was most often affected (RH: 90.9% vs. OC: 94.4%, p=0.518) and a stent retriever only strategy commonly chosen (RH: 42.8% vs. OC: 30.5%, p=0.211), followed by a combined approach of stent retriever use and aspiration (RH: 25.9% vs. OC: 27.7%, p=0.752). Door-to-needle time (RH: 0:55h IQR [0:45–1:22] vs. OC: 1:05h IQR [0:54–1:30], p=0.237) and procedure duration (RH: 0:48h IQR [0:30–1:25] vs. OC: 0:58h IQR [0:35–1:46], p=0.214) were comparable. Contrast agent use and radiation time (RH: 17.6 min IQR [11.7–29.3] vs. OC: 17.6 min IQR [12.1–33.6]) did not differ between groups, however patients in the OC group experienced a higher dose area product (RH: 4827mGy cm2 IQR [1567–14092] vs. 12727mGy cm2 [6732–18889], p&amp;lt;0.001). The combined quality endpoint, comprising of TICI IIb/III flow after the procedure, no embolization to new territory and no symptomatic intracranial bleeding during in hospital stay was met in 85.5% of patients in the RH group and 80.5% of the on-call group (p=0.485). Death during in-hospital stay was observed in 22% of patients in the RH group and 11.1% of the OC group (p=0.163). Conclusions Endovascular intervention for acute stroke treatment during on-call time is as effective and safe as if performed during regular hours but associated with a higher dose area product. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Regular hours vs. on-call endovascular interventions for acute stroke treatment: initial single-center experience by interventional cardiologists