Hoesch, Robert

Background Telestroke emergency department (ED) workflow emulates that of in-person care, yet limitations of the virtual interaction may require accommodations. The optimal sequence of non-contrast head CT, cerebral CT angiogram, and decision to infuse IV thrombolytic is not defined for telestroke. Methods In this twenty-two-hospital multicenter retrospective study between 1/1/2024-12/31/2024, we characterized timing of ED CT angiograms, either bundled with the non-contrast head CT or non-bundled and performed after the IV-thrombolytic decision. The primary outcome was effect of bundling on door to needle time (DTN) when directed by telestroke. Timing of CT scans was determined by time stamps of scout images. Results In total, 5704 patients were included, with a median age of 65 years (Interquartile range, IQR 58-77) and NIHSS 8 (IQR 6-13). There were 4518 patients in the bundled group (n = 12 hospitals), with time from non-contrast CT to CTA of median 2 min (IQR 0-6 min; vs non-bundled (n = 10 hospitals): 7, 4-15 min; P = .0001). DTN was not statistically different between the groups, bundled vs not: median 47 min (IQR, 35-62 min) vs 54 min (IQR, 41-67 min, P = .21). Door in door out (DIDO) times also were unchanged (169, 117-254 vs 175, 123-247 min; P = .56). These findings, although showing no statistical difference, may have significance for clinical workflows and were consistent with the results of validation analyses conducted on individual patients. Conclusions Bundling non-contrast head CT with the CT angiogram before thrombolytic decision did not delay DTN times, trended to clinically improve times, and may be relevant for telestroke ED workflows.

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.