Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: Access to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is relatively limited. Hub-and-spoke networks seek to transfer appropriate large vessel occlusion (LVO) candidates to EVT-capable hubs. However, some patients are ineligible upon hub arrival, and factors that drive transfer inefficiencies are not well described. We sought to quantify EVT transfer efficiency and identify reasons for EVT ineligibility. Methods: Consecutive EVT candidates presenting to 25 spokes from 2018-2020 with pre-transfer CTA-defined LVO and ASPECTS ≥6 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Outcomes of interest included hub EVT, reasons for EVT ineligibility, and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤2. Results: Among 258 patients, the median age was 70 years (IQR 60-81); 50% were female. 56% were ineligible for EVT after hub arrival. Cited reasons were large established infarct (49%), mild symptoms (33%), recanalization (6%), distal occlusion (5%), sub-occlusive lesion (3%), and goals of care (3%). Late window patients last known well (LKW) >6 hours were more likely to be ineligible (67% vs 43%, P<0.0001). EVT ineligible patients were older (73 vs 68 years, p=0.04), had lower NIHSS (10 vs 16, p<0.0001), longer LKW-hub arrival time (8.4 vs 4.6 hours, p<0.0001), longer spoke Telestroke consult-hub arrival time (2.8 vs 2.2 hours, p<0.0001), and received less intravenous thrombolysis (32% vs 45%, p=0.04) compared to eligible patients. EVT ineligibility independently reduced the odds of 90-day mRS≤2 (aOR=0.26, 95%CI=0.12,0.56; p=0.001) when controlling for age, NIHSS, and LKW-hub arrival time. Conclusions: Among patients transferred for EVT, there are multiple reasons for ineligibility upon hub arrival, with most excluded for infarct growth and mild symptoms. Understanding factors that drive transfer inefficiencies is important to improve EVT access and outcomes.
Regenhardt et al. (Fri,) studied this question.