What question did this study set out to answer?

Evaluate the safety and efficiency of telemedicine-guided intravenous thrombolysis for minor acute ischemic stroke.

February 2, 2026

Abstract WP023: Virtual vs. Bedside: IVT for Minor Stroke via Telemedicine vs. In-Person Evaluation; Insights from the UTOPIA Study

Key Points

Evaluate the safety and efficiency of telemedicine-guided intravenous thrombolysis for minor acute ischemic stroke.
Retrospective analysis of patients with presumed mild AIS treated with IVT from January 2021 to December 2023.
Patients stratified by telemedicine vs in-person evaluation and fulfillment of TREAT Task Force criteria.
Data collected included demographics, vascular risk factors, workflow metrics, and safety outcomes.
Of 480 patients, 374 (78.1%) were evaluated via telemedicine and 105 (21.9%) in person.
Telemedicine patients had lower rates of hyperlipidemia and higher rates of DMVO compared to in-person patients.
Workflow delays were significant for telemedicine evaluations; median door-to-CT and door-to-needle times were longer compared to in-person evaluations.
Safety outcomes were similar, with symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage rates ≤2%.

Abstract

Introduction: Minor acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a heterogeneous condition, and evidence suggests IVT may be harmful in patients with non-disabling symptoms. The ARAMIS trial validated a standardized framework, aligned with TREAT Task Force criteria, to reduce variability in disability assessment. While telestroke(TS) is an established alternative for AIS triage, TS-guided IVT presents added challenges in disability determination. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, workflows, and safety of TS-guided IVT in mild AIS, stratified by TREAT criteria, within a large multi-hospital network. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with presumed mild AIS (NIHSS ≤5) treated with IVT between January 2021 and December 2023 across suburban and urban hospitals. Patients were stratified by in-person vs TS evaluation and by fulfillment of TREAT Task Force disability criteria. Demographics, vascular risk factors, stroke etiology, workflow metrics (door-to-CT(dCT), door-to-needle (DTN)), and safety outcomes (symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage(sICH), asymptomatic ICH(aICH)) were collected. Comparative analyses were performed across groups. Results: Of 480 patients treated with IVT, 374(78.1%) were evaluated via TS and 105(21.9%) in person. TS patients had lower rates of hyperlipidemia (39.2%vs57.1%,p<0.01) and higher rates of DMVO (21.0%vs9.6%,p<0.01). Ischemic stroke was more frequently the final diagnosis after in-person evaluation (68.6%vs47.5%,p<0.01). Workflow delays were observed in TS (median dCT 30vs16 min;DTN 70 vs49 min,both p<0.01). Safety outcomes were comparable, with sICH ≤2%.(Table 1) Overall, 216 patients (45.0%) fulfilled TREAT criteria; they were younger (median 64.3vs68.0 years,p=0.049) and had higher NIHSS (median 4vs2,p<0.01).(Table 2) Within the TREAT cohort (n=216), workflow delays persisted in TS evaluation (dCT 28vs12min;DTN 70vs47min,both p<0.01), though safety outcomes remained similar.(Table 3) Conclusion: TS-guided IVT in mild AIS is safe and feasible, with outcomes comparable to in-person evaluation despite longer workflow times. Patients meeting TREAT disability criteria were younger and more severely affected, supporting the utility of standardized frameworks to guide IVT decisions and reduce subjectivity in defining disability. These findings reinforce the role of telemedicine in extending access to thrombolysis while highlighting the need for workflow optimization and further study of functional outcomes.

Read Full Paperexternally

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper