Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 2(16), p. 151-155, 2023

DOI: 10.1136/jnis-2023-020128

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Variation in US acute ischemic stroke treatment by hospital regions: limited endovascular access despite evidence

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough national organizations recognize the importance of regionalized acute ischemic stroke (AIS) care, data informing expansion are sparse. We assessed real-world regional variation in emergent AIS treatment, including growth in revascularization therapies and stroke center certification. We hypothesized that we would observe overall growth in revascularization therapy utilization, but observed differences would vary greatly regionally.MethodsA retrospective cross-sectional analysis was carried out of de-identified national inpatient Medicare Fee-for-Service datasets from 2016 to 2019. We identified AIS admissions and treatment with thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (ET) with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We grouped hospitals in Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare Hospital Referral Regions (HRR) and calculated hospital, demographic, and acute stroke treatment characteristics for each HRR. We calculated the percent of hospitals with stroke certification and AIS cases treated with thrombolysis or ET per HRR.ResultsThere were 957 958 AIS admissions. Relative mean (SD) growth in percent of AIS admissions receiving revascularization therapy per HRR from 2016 to 2019 was 13.4 (31.7)% (IQR −6.1–31.7%) for thrombolysis and 28.0 (72.0)% (IQR 0–56.0%) for ET. The proportion of HRRs with decreased or no difference in ET utilization was 38.9% and the proportion of HRRs with decreased or no difference in thrombolysis utilization was 32.7%. Mean (SD) stroke center certification proportion across HRRs was 45.3 (31.5)% and this varied widely (IQR 18.3–73.4%).ConclusionsOverall growth in AIS treatment has been modest and, within HRRs, growth in AIS treatment and the proportion of centers with stroke certification varies dramatically.