Spokoyny, Ilana

Introduction: "Mild" stroke is not well defined, but is a relative contraindication for the administration of IV rtPA. Advances in telemedicine have allowed for specialized practitioners to observe the examination, rather than rely on the on-scene examiner. We investigated whether there were differences in rates of identification, treatment, and outcomes of mild stroke patients in the phone compared to the video arms of a telestroke network. Methods: The STRokE DOC trials were prospective, randomized, outcome-blinded trials comparing video telemedicine to phone-only evaluations, which assessed eligibility for IV rtPA and correctness of decision-making for 2 hubs and 6 spokes. This analysis included all adult acute ischemic stroke patients from the STRokE DOC trials who were defined as “mild” using a recent definition from the TREAT Task Force. Rates of ICH, mortality, and dichotomized 90-day mRS scores were compared between the video and phone arms. Results: Mild stroke accounted for 32% and 29% of the video and phone arms, respectively. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics except hypertension (higher rate in video arm). Of the video mild stroke patients, 13% had poor outcome (mRS>1) compared to 24% of the phone arm (p=0.45). There were no symptomatic ICH or deaths. Among IV rtPA treated mild stroke patients, all of the video arm had good outcome, versus 25% of the phone arm. Of 100 non-treated patients, 34 were excluded because of "too mild" a deficit (TMT). In the phone arm, 7 of these did not meet the TREAT-derived criteria for mild stroke (p=0.03). One TMT patient in the phone arm had poor outcome. Conclusions: Mild stroke made up a third of the patients in each group. Some TMT patients in the phone arm did not meet the criteria for mild stroke; their subtle findings may not have been conveyed adequately over the phone. Among IV rtPA treated patients, the phone arm had worse outcomes. The results raise concern regarding accuracy of predicting outcomes for mild stroke patients, especially when based on a phone description. The study numbers were small, so conclusions cannot be definitively made. Future studies are necessary to determine decision making factors within the telemedicine process that influence treatment outcomes among mild stroke patients.

Introduction: Respect for patient autonomy is critical, and patients/surrogates may have various preferences about acute stroke treatment that are not fully appreciated during a stroke code. COAST (Coordinating Options for Acute Stroke Therapy) is a stroke advance directive formalizing advanced consent for thrombolysis (tPA) and endovascular therapy (EVT). We examine the distribution of patient preferences to improve understanding and respect for patient autonomy in acute stroke. Methods: In our IRB-approved study, we collected COAST forms at UC San Diego from 12/1/2014-2/29/2020. Patients chose one of five tPA preferences: not under any circumstance (tPA 1); up to 3 hours only, based on FDA approval (tPA 2); up to 4.5 hours only, based on current guidelines (tPA 3); anytime per provider discretion (tPA 4); or other answer (tPA treatment under specific conditions written by the patient/surrogate) (tPA 5). Patients also chose one of five EVT preferences: not under any circumstance (EVT 1); up to 6 hours only (EVT 2); up to 12 hours only (EVT 3); up to 24 hours only (this option replaced "up to 12 hours only" on 3/1/2018 when the 6-24 hour window became standard of care) (EVT 4); anytime at provider discretion (EVT 5); or other answer (EVT treatment under specific conditions written by the patient/surrogate) (EVT 6). Frequency of preferences was calculated for each option. Results: In total, 342 COASTs were completed. Frequency of tPA preferences were: 3.2% for tPA 1 (11/342), 1.5% for tPA 2 (5/342), 25.7% for tPA 3 (88/342), 55.6% for tPA 4 (190/342), 14.0% for tPA 5 (48/342). Frequency of EVT preferences were: 1.8% for EVT 1 (6/342), 9.6% for EVT 2 (33/342), 3.2% for EVT 3 (11/342), 10.8% for EVT 4 (37/342), 62.3% for EVT 5 (213/342), 12.3% for EVT 6 (42/342). When the 6-24 hour window became standard of care, 0% (0/342) chose EVT 2. Total 81.6% (n=279) of COASTs had the same tPA and EVT preferences, and 18.4% (n=63) had tPA preferences that were different from EVT preferences. Conclusion: Preferences vary regarding tPA and EVT treatment. Most patients defer to provider discretion, though some patients have preferences that are different from current provider expectations and/or stroke guidelines. COAST is pivotal to inform respect for patient autonomy for acute stroke codes.