RESUMEN

Introduction: Standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) includes prompt evaluation for urgent mechanical thrombectomy (MT) at a comprehensive stroke center (CSC). During the start of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), there were reports about disruption to emergency department (ED) operations and delays in management of patients with AIS-LVO. In this study we investigate the outcome and operations for patients who were transferred from different EDs to an academic CSC's critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU), which specializes in expeditious transfer of time-sensitive disease. Methods: This was a pre-post retrospective study using prospectively collected clinical data from our CSC's stroke registry. Adult patients who were transferred from any ED to the CCRU and underwent MT were eligible. We compared time intervals in the pre-pandemic (PP) period between January 2018- February 2020, such as ED in-out and CCRU arrival-angiography, to those during the pandemic (DP) between March 2020-May 31, 2021. We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify which time intervals, besides clinical factors, were associated with good neurological outcome (90-day modified Rankin scale 0-2). Results: We analyzed 203 patients: 135 (66.5%) in the PP group and 68 (33.5%) in the DP group. Time from ED triage to computed tomography (difference 7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -1, P < 0.01) for the DP group was statistically longer, but ED in-out was similar for both groups. Time from CCRU arrival to angiography (difference 9 minutes, 95% CI 4-13, P < 0.01) for the DP group was shorter. Forty-nine percent of the DP group achieved mRS ≤ 2 vs 32% for the PP group (difference -17%, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.03, P < 0.01). The CART identified initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, age, ED in-and-out time, and CCRU arrival-to-angiography time as important predictors of good outcome. Conclusion: Overall, the care process in EDs and at this single CSC for patients requiring MT were not heavily affected by the pandemic, as certain time metrics during the pandemic were statistically shorter than pre-pandemic intervals. Time intervals such as ED in-and-out and CCRU arrival-to-angiography were important factors in achieving good neurologic outcomes. Further study is necessary to confirm our observation and improve operational efficiency in the future.

Asunto(s)

COVID-19 , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico , Trombectomía , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Trombectomía/métodos , Anciano , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico/terapia , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico/cirugía , Persona de Mediana Edad , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/organización & administración , Cuidados Críticos , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias , Sistema de Registros , Transferencia de Pacientes , Resucitación/métodos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Anciano de 80 o más Años

RESUMEN

Background: The 6-bed critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) is a unique and specialized intensive care unit (ICU) that streamlines the interhospital transfer (IHT-transfer between different hospitals) process for a wide range of patients with critical illness or time-sensitive disease. Previous studies showed the unit successfully increased the number of ICU admissions while reducing the time of transfer in the first year of its establishment. However, its sustainability is unknown. Methods: This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of adult, non-trauma patients who were transferred to an 800-bed quaternary medical center. Patients transferred to our medical center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 were eligible. We used interrupted time series (ITS) and descriptive analyses to describe the trend and compare the transfer process between patients who were transferred to the CCRU versus those transferred to other adult inpatient units. Results: From 2014 to 2018, 50,599 patients were transferred to our medical center; 31,582 (62%) were non-trauma adults. Compared with the year prior to the opening of the CCRU, ITS showed a significant increase in IHT after the establishment of the CCRU. The CCRU received a total of 7,788 (25%) IHTs during this period or approximately 20% of total transfers per year. Most transfers (41%) occurred via ground. Median and interquartile range [IQR] of transfer times to other ICUs (156 [65-1027] minutes) were longer than the CCRU (46 [22-139] minutes, P < 0.001). For the CCRU, the most common accepting services were cardiac surgery (16%), neurosurgery (11%), and emergency general surgery (10%). Conclusions: The CCRU increases the overall number of transfers to our institution, improves patient access to specialty care while decreasing transfer time, and continues to be a sustainable model over time. Additional research is needed to determine if transferring patients to the CCRU would continue to improve patients' outcomes and hospital revenue.