%0 Journal Article
%T Interhospital Transfer for Endovascular Stroke Treatment in Canada: Results From the OPTIMISE Registry.
%A Katsanos AH
%A Poppe A
%A Swartz RH
%A Mandzia J
%A Catanese L
%A Shankar J
%A Yip S
%A Verreault S
%A Medvedev G
%A Maran I
%A Legault C
%A Ferguson D
%A Archer B
%A Bharatha A
%A Volders D
%A Kelly M
%A Carpani F
%A Pikula A
%A Tkach A
%A Moreau F
%A Beaudry M
%A Appireddy R
%A Deshmukh A
%A Almekhlafi M
%A Fahed R
%A Kamal N
%A Menon B
%A Shoamanesh A
%A Williams H
%A Yu AYX
%A Heran MKS
%A Hill MD
%A Sharma M
%A Earl K
%A Demchuk AM
%A Stotts G
%J Stroke
%V 55
%N 8
%D 2024 Aug
%M 39038099
%F 10.17
%R 10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.046690
%X <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Interhospital transfer for patients with stroke due to large vessel occlusion for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has been associated with treatment delays.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>We analyzed data from Optimizing Patient Treatment in Major Ischemic Stroke With EVT, a quality improvement registry to support EVT implementation in Canada. We assessed for unadjusted differences in baseline characteristics, time metrics, and procedural outcomes between patients with large vessel occlusion transferred for EVT and those directly admitted to an EVT-capable center.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, a total of 6803 patients received EVT at 20 participating centers (median age, 73 years; 50% women; and 50% treated with intravenous thrombolysis). Patients transferred for EVT (n=3376) had lower rates of M2 occlusion (22% versus 27%) and higher rates of basilar occlusion (9% versus 5%) compared with those patients presenting directly at an EVT-capable center (n=3373). Door-to-needle times were shorter in patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis before transfer compared with those presenting directly to an EVT center (32 versus 36 minutes). Patients transferred for EVT had shorter door-to-arterial access times (37 versus 87 minutes) but longer last seen normal-to-arterial access times (322 versus 181 minutes) compared with those presenting directly to an EVT-capable center. No differences in arterial access-to-reperfusion times, successful reperfusion rates (85% versus 86%), or adverse periprocedural events were found between the 2 groups. Patients transferred to EVT centers had a similar likelihood for good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2; 41% versus 43%; risk ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.88-1.01]; adjusted risk ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.05]) and a higher risk for all-cause mortality at 90 days (29% versus 25%; risk ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05-1.27]; adjusted risk ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.28]) compared with patients presenting directly to an EVT center.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Patients transferred for EVT experience significant delays from the time they were last seen normal to the initiation of EVT.