Performance of Thrombectomy-Capable, Comprehensive, and Primary Stroke Centers in Reperfusion Therapies for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Report From the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Registry
Radoslav Raychev,Jie-Lena Sun,Lee Schwamm,Eric E Smith,Gregg C Fonarow,Steven R Messé,Ying Xian,Karen Chiswell,Rosalia Blanco,Brian Mac Grory,Jeffrey L Saver
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.066114
IF: 37.8
2023-12-19
Circulation
Abstract:Background: The thrombectomy-capable stroke center (TSC) is a recently introduced intermediate tier of accreditation for hospitals at which patients with acute ischemic stroke receive care. The comparative quality and clinical outcomes of reperfusion therapies at TSCs, primary stroke centers (PSCs), and comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) have not been well delineated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational, cohort study from 2018 to 2020 that included patients with acute ischemic stroke who received endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and intravenous thrombolysis reperfusion therapies at CSCs, TSCs, or PSCs. Participants were recruited from Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry. Study end points included timeliness of intravenous thrombolysis and EVT, successful reperfusion, discharge destination, discharge mortality, and functional independence at discharge. Results: Among 84 903 patients, 48 682 received EVT, of whom 73% were treated at CSCs, 22% at PSCs, and 4% at TSCs. The median annual EVT volume was 76 for CSCs, 55 for TSCs, and 32 for PSCs. Patient differences by center status included higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, longer onset-to-arrival time, and higher transfer-in rates for CSCs, TSCs, and PSCs, respectively. In adjusted analyses, the likelihood of achieving the goal door-to-needle time was higher in CSCs compared with PSCs (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.17-1.66]) and in TSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.08-1.96]). Likewise, the odds of achieving the goal door-to-puncture time were higher in CSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.13-2.21]). CSCs and TSCs also demonstrated better clinical efficacy outcomes compared with PSCs. The odds of discharge to home or rehabilitation were higher in CSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.06-1.31]), whereas the odds of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice were lower in both CSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81-0.94]) and TSCs compared with PSCs (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-0.98]). There were no significant differences in any of the quality-of-care metrics and clinical outcomes between TSCs and CSCs. Conclusions: In this study representing national US practice, CSCs and TSCs exceeded PSCs in key quality-of-care reperfusion metrics and outcomes, whereas TSCs and CSCs demonstrated a similar performance. With more than one-fifth of all EVT procedures during the study period conducted at PSCs, it may be desirable to explore national initiatives aimed at facilitating the elevation of eligible PSCs to a higher certification status.