Comparison between telestroke versus face-to-face thrombolysis models in stroke management in Colombia

Alexandra, Alonso Niño Mónica; Luis, Bustos Sánchez José; Carlos, Ramos Clason Enrique; Patricia, Jurado López Sandra; Alexander, Márquez Rosales Benjamín; Alexander, Aroca Posso; Álvaro, Estupiñán Mejía; Alfredo, Merchán Luis; Norman, López Velásquez; Loida, Camargo Camargo

doi:10.1016/j.neurop.2023.100111

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In discharge, both groups had a median NIHSS score of 4. The authors concluded that thrombolysis therapy was safe and effective in both strategies ( 29 ). Our findings of better protocol metrics in the telestroke group were surprising.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-hospital stroke protocol outcomes before and after the implementation of neurological assessments by telemedicine: an observational case–control study

Massaud,

Accorsi,

Massant

et al. 2024

Front. Neurol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeStroke is the second leading cause of global adult mortality and the primary cause of disability. A rapid assessment by a neurologist for general and reperfusion treatments in ischemic strokes is linked to decreased mortality and disability. Telestroke assessment is a strategy that allows for neurological consultations with experienced professionals, even in remote emergency contexts. No randomized studies have compared face-to-face neurological care outcomes with telestroke care. Whether neurologists in an institution achieve better results remotely than in person is also unknown. This study aimed to compare mortality and other outcomes commonly measured in stroke protocols for stroke patients assessed by a neurologist via face-to-face evaluations and telestroke assessment.MethodsObservational single-center retrospective study from August/2009 to February/2022, enrolling 2,689 patients with ischemic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intracerebral hemorrhage. Group 1 (G1) comprised 2,437 patients with in-person neurological assessments, and Telemedicine Group 2 (G2) included 252 patients.ResultsThe in-person group had higher admission NIHSS scores (G1, 3 (0; 36) vs. G2, 2 (0; 26), p < 0.001). The door-to-groin puncture time was lower in the in-person group than in the telestroke group (G1, 103 (42; 310) vs. G2, 151 (109; 340), p < 0.001). The telestroke group showed superior metrics for door-to-imaging time, symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate in ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis, hospital stay duration, higher rates of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, and lower mortality. Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate was smaller in the group evaluated via telestroke (G1, 5.1% vs. G2, 1.1%, p = 0.016). Intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy rates were significantly higher in telestroke group: (G1, 8.6% vs. G2, 18.2%, p < 0.001 and G1, 5.1% vs. G2, 10.4%, p = 0.002, respectively). Mortality was lower in the telestroke group than in the in-person group (G1, 11.1% vs. G2, 6.7%, p = 0.001). The percentage of patients with an mRS score of 0–2 at discharge was similar in both groups when adjusting for NIHSS score and age.ConclusionThe same neurological emergency team may assess stroke patients in-person or by telemedicine, with excellent outcome metrics. This study reaffirms telestroke as a safe tool in acute stroke care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%