Petrone, Ashley

Background: Interfacility transfers, especially in rural settings, present challenges including limited ambulance availability, bed capacity, image sharing and disparities in access. Regional transfer minimizes time to definitive stroke center care, relies less on costly helicopter transport, supports local healthcare economies, and preserves comprehensive stroke center (CSC) resources for those most likely to benefit. Although these advantages are well-established and reflected in the guidelines, transfers within our connected care rural network were not previously accepted at hospitals outside of our central comprehensive stroke center (CSC). Methods: We identified a local primary stroke center to serve as the regional stroke transfer center (rSTC) within our larger telestroke network. Over one year, (2023-2024), stakeholder meetings with representatives from the rSTC, surrounding smaller hospitals and the CSC were conducted to pinpoint potential roadblocks and create workflows that facilitated regional transfer. Regionally appropriate transfers were defined as patients without LVO, low likelihood for any neurosurgical decompression, or critical illness requiring dedicated neuro-intensive care. Education surrounding these criteria occurred quarterly and case logs were maintained and reviewed by the rSTC stroke coordinator. Retrospective chart review one year following the intervention period (2024-2025) was performed. Results: Of the 99 total transferred patients, 73 (73.7%) patients were transferred regionally. Their average LOS was 2.1 days, with 0% mortality rate and 0% requiring a secondary transfer to the CSC. 26 (26.3%) patients went to the CSC; LOS was 10.6 days and mortality 23.1%. Transfer times were shorter for rSTC patients (60 min vs 188 min). Six CSC patients met regional criteria (26.3% overtriage rate). Conclusion: Establishing an effective regional transfer model is possible with broad stakeholder engagement and regular network maintenance. Following our intervention, most eligible patients remained local and were treated appropriately. Although there was a significant reduction of the patients transferred to the CSC, the majority of CSC transfers were also appropriately triaged. This rSTC model facilitates the care of all stroke patients by providing the right level of care for the right patient, avoiding futile transfers with costly admissions far from home while opening beds and reducing transfer times to CSCs.

Background: Despite decades long adoption as the standard-of-care for ischemic stroke, the majority of eligible patients do not receive intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), with underutilization especially pronounced in rural areas. Telestroke, however, may help alleviate this geographical healthcare disparity. The current study aims to identify the impact of implementing a mature telestroke network within a rural setting. Methods: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained telestroke database from a large rural tertiary care comprehensive stroke center covering 31 spoke hospitals spanning critical access hospitals to primary stroke centers between 10/2021-02/2023. Data was compared to a previous review period (01/2016-12/2018; comprised of 8 spokes) and the statewide IVT rates recorded in GWTG. Data analysis conducted via descriptive statistics and Fisher’s (two-tailed) exact test. Results: 1801 telestroke consults were performed; 41.4% (746/1801) were ineligible for acute stroke intervention. 39% (410/1055) of eligible patients were treated with IVT (vs. 33% [317/959] previously, p = 0.068), representing 58% (410/708; vs 24% [107/448] previously, p < 0.001) of statewide total IVT administration. Symptomatic hemorrhage (sICH) was 3.0%, overall 30-day mortality was 5.6%, and sICH mortality was 1.0%. IVT deferred most commonly: low NIH (44%), mimics (21%), coagulopathy (8%), followed by other. 22% (396/1801) of total consults were transferred from the originating site (vs. 34% [305/890] previously, p < 0.0001) of which 10% (42/396) underwent EVT. Discussion: The impact of expanding a rural telestroke network continued to produce high IVT rates (nearly double the national average) with safety outcomes (sICH, mortality) at or below national standards. Additionally, a large network has significantly increased the proportion of patients remaining at originating sites, optimizing both tertiary and local centers’ resources. The value of a regional telestroke hub is further underscored by the significant increase in statewide IVT attributed to network consults. However, further strategies are needed to better educate rural providers on acute stroke to reduce the rate of ineligible consults and streamline use of telestroke services.

Background: Telestroke networks have effectively increased the number of ischemic stroke patients who have access to acute stroke therapy. However, the availability of a dedicated group of stroke subspecialists is not always feasible. Hypothesis: Rates of tPA recommendation, accuracy of final diagnosis and post-tPA hemorrhagic complications do not differ significantly between neurologists and an emergency-medicine physician during telestroke consultations. Methods: Retrospective review of all telestroke consults performed at a comprehensive stroke center during one year. Statistical analysis: Chi squared test. Results: 303 consults were performed among 6 spoke sites. 16% (48/303) were completed by the emergency medicine physician; 25% (76/303) were performed by non stroke-trained neurologists, and 60% (179/303) were completed by a board-certified Vascular Neurologist. Overall rate of tPA recommendation was 40% (104/255), 38% (18/48), 41% (73/179), and 41% (31/76) among the all neurology-trained, emergency medicine- trained, stroke neurology-trained and other neurology- trained provider groups respectively (p = .427). Accuracy of final stroke diagnosis was 77% (14/18) and 72% (75/104) in the emergency-medicine trained and neurology-trained provider groups (p = 0.777) No symptomatic hemorrhagic complications following the administration of tPA via telestroke consultation occurred in any group over this time period. One asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was observed (0.96% or 1/104) in the neurology-trained provider group. Conclusion: Our results did not illustrate any statistically significant difference between care provided by an Emergency Medicine-trained physician and neurologists during telestroke consultation. While our study is limited by its relatively low numbers, it suggests that identifying a non-neurologist provider who has requisite clinical experience with acute stroke patients can safely and appropriately provide telestroke consultation. The lack of formerly trained neurologists, therefore may not need to serve as an impediment to building an effective telestroke network. Future efforts should be focused on illuminating all strategies that facilitate sustainable telestroke implementation.

Opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome (OMS) is an extremely rare neurological syndrome typically affecting as few as 1 in 10,000,000 people annually. OMS is characterized by the presence of involuntary, saccadic eye movements, as well as ataxia, including gait incoordination, rigidity, and tremor. The origin of OMS is unclear, but a significant percentage of OMS cases are indicative of an underlying malignancy, most commonly neuroblastoma and small cell lung cancer. Here we describe an adult patient with OMS, who was ultimately diagnosed with a small ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. To our knowledge, this is the third published report of an association between OMS and pancreatic malignancy, and the only case where the pancreatic malignancy was detected prior to metastasis or autopsy at death. This case report highlights the importance of careful, aggressive malignancy screening with OMS, as the pancreatic duct cut-off sign may be overlooked if pancreatic malignancy is not suspected.