Background: Mechanical thrombectomy was approved by NICE as a treatment for stroke in 2016. However, most of the evidence is from studies conducted during working hours. Only few centres in the UK perform thrombectomies out-of-hours. The Royal Stoke University Hospital (RSUH) has offered thrombectomies over 24 h (24/7) since 2010. The aim of this service review is to compare the outcomes for patients treated in regular working hours to those treated outside normal working hours within this unit. Methods: This retrospective service analysis includes all patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy at RSUH since the start of the service in January 2010 to June 2019. Data on key demographics, timings, procedural complications, and long-term outcomes including death and disability at 90 days were collected. In-hours was defined as the time between 8:00-17:00 h, Monday to Friday; out-of-hours was defined as any time outside this period. Results: In total, 516 mechanical thrombectomies were performed in this time period; data were available on 501 of these. Successful recanalization (TICI 2b/3) was achieved in 86% of patients. By 90 days 96 (19%) had died and 234 (47%) were functionally independent (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2). 211 (42%) of the procedures were performed in-hours and 290 (58%) out-of-hours. Door-to-CT and door-to-groin times were significantly longer outof-hours than in-hours, but thrombectomy duration was significantly shorter. There were no significant differences in complications and short-and long-term outcomes. Conclusion: Mechanical thrombectomy was delivered safely and effectively 24/7 in this UK hospital, with no difference in clinical outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to compare the performance of three PsA screening questionnaires in a primary care psoriasis surveillance study. Methods Participants with psoriasis, and not known to have PsA, were identified from general practice databases and invited to attend a secondary care centre for a clinical assessment. The three patient-completed screening questionnaires (PEST, CONTEST and CONTESTjt) were administered, along with other patient-reported measures, and a clinical examination of skin and joints was performed. Participants who demonstrated signs of inflammatory arthritis suggestive of PsA were referred, via their GP, for a further assessment in a secondary care rheumatology clinic. Results A total of 791 participants attended the screening visit, and 165 participants were judged to have signs and symptoms of inflammatory arthritis, of which 150 were referred for assessment. Of these, 126 were seen and 48 were diagnosed with PsA. The results for each questionnaire were as follows: PEST: sensitivity 0.625 (95% CI 0.482, 0.749), specificity 0.757 (0.724, 0.787); CONTEST: sensitivity 0.604 (0.461, 0.731), specificity 0.768 (0.736, 0.798); and CONTESTjt: sensitivity 0.542 (0.401, 0.676), specificity 0.834 (0.805, 0.859). CONTESTjt demonstrated marginally superior specificity to PEST, though the area under the ROC curve was similar for all three instruments. Conclusion Minimal differences between the three screening questionnaires were found in this study, and no preferred questionnaire is indicated by these results. The choice of which instrument to choose will depend on other factors, such as simplicity and low patient burden.