Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016 Jul;25(7):1665-1670. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.02.011. Epub 2016 Apr 7.

Impact of Prehospital Intervention on Delay Time to Thrombolytic Therapy in a Stroke Center with a Systemized Stroke Code Program.

Author information

1
Busan-Ulsan Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Center, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea; Department of Neurology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Busan, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: kdh6542@hanmail.net.
2
Busan-Ulsan Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Center, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea; Department of Neurology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Busan, Republic of Korea.
3
Busan-Ulsan Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Center, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The use of emergency medical services (EMS) and notification to hospitals by paramedics for patients with suspected stroke are crucial determinants in reducing delay time to acute stroke treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate whether EMS use and prehospital notification (PN) can shorten the time to thrombolytic therapy in a stroke center with a systemized stroke code program.

METHODS:

Beginning in January 2012, stroke experts in our stroke center received direct calls via mobile phone from paramedics prenotifying the transport of patients with suspected stroke. We compared baseline characteristics and prehospital/in-hospital delay time in stroke patients treated with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for 44 months with and without EMS use and/or PN.

RESULTS:

Intravenous thrombolytic therapy was performed on 274 patients. Of those patients, 215 (78.5%) were transported to the hospital via EMS and 59 (21.5%) were admitted via private modes of transportation. The patients who used EMS had shorter median onset-to-arrival times (62 minutes versus 116 minutes, P < .001). There was no difference in in-hospital delay time between the 2 groups. In 28 cases (13%) of EMS transport, EMS personnel called the clinical staff to notify the incoming patient. Prenotification by EMS was associated with shorter median door-to-imaging time (9 minutes versus 12 minutes, P = .045) and door-to-needle time (20 minutes versus 29 minutes, P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS:

We found that EMS use reduces prehospital delay time. However, EMS use without prenotification does not shorten in-hospital processing time in a stroke center with a systemized stroke code program.

KEYWORDS:

Stroke; door-to-needle time; emergency medicine; prenotification; thrombolysis

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center