Coevering, Russell Van

Abstract Background and aims Interfacility transfers in rural areas are challenging due to limited ambulance and bed availability, image sharing issues, and access disparities. Regional transfers to strategically located primary stroke centers can reduce time to care, decrease helicopter use, support local economies, and conserve comprehensive stroke center (CSC) resources. This study established a primary stroke center as a regional transfer center (rSTC) within a telestroke network. Methods Over one year, stakeholders created regionally appropriate transfer workflows defined as patients without large vessel occlusion, low likelihood for neurosurgical decompression or critical illness within a rSTC and 4 surrounding centers. Continuous education and prospective case logs were maintained by the rSTC stroke coordinator and a retrospective chart review was conducted one year following the intervention period. Results Of 99 patients requiring transfer, 73 (73.7%) went to the rSTC, with an average stay of 2.1 days, no deaths, and no secondary CSC transfers. The remaining 26 (26.3%) were sent to the CSC, with longer stays (10.6 days) and higher mortality (23.1%). Transfers to the rSTC were faster (60 min vs. 188 min). Financial analysis showed significant EMS savings ($455,111) and local health system benefits ($730,000) when compared to the pre-intervention period. Conclusions Establishing an effective regional transfer model is possible with broad stakeholder engagement and regular network maintenance. rSTCs provide the right level of care for the right patient, improving efficient allocation of healthcare resources and avoiding futile transfers with costly admissions far from home while opening beds and reducing transfer times to CSCs. Conflict of interest Nothing to disclose

Background: Left ventricular (LV) injury is a cardioembolic etiology of ischemic stroke. We aimed to 1) evaluate recurrent stroke risk among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury, and 2) determine if there is a treatment effect with anticoagulation in this population. Methods: We analyzed the multicenter, retrospective Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort of patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke. The exposure was LV injury defined by 1) LV ejection fraction (EF) 20-40% and/or 2) LV wall motion abnormality (hypokinesis or akinesis). The primary composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Cox proportional hazard models were built and sequentially adjusted for 1) age and sex (Model 1), and 2) age, sex, race, ethnicity, anti-thrombotic use, and vascular risk factors (Model 2). We then assessed if there was heterogeneity in treatment effect by LV injury status with an interaction term of LV injury and oral anticoagulation use in Model 2. Results: Of 2,641 patients in CASPR, the analytic cohort included 2,191 patients with complete exposure and outcome data (median age 65 years, 49.8% female, median follow-up 1.55 years). There were 113 (5.2%) patients with LV injury (median LVEF 30%, interquartile range 25-34%). There were 559 incident events (321 recurrent strokes [288 ischemic], 71 major hemorrhages, 250 deaths). Among patients with LV injury, 15.9% were prescribed an anticoagulant within 7 days of index stroke (vs 9.6% without LV injury, p=0.03). The unadjusted risk of the primary outcome was non-significantly higher among patients with LV injury vs without (HR 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-2.00), but became significant in Model 1 (HR 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.85) and in Model 2 (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.11-1.64). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation vs antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.94). In patients without LV injury, anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of the composite outcome (HR 4.35, 95% CI, 1.69-11.16, p[interaction]=0.002). Conclusion: In this observational study, there was an increased risk of the primary outcome which included recurrent stroke among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury. Anticoagulation use in LV injury is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the primary outcome. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Malignancy represents an important subgroup of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). We aim to compare infarct features, potential embolic sources, and long-term outcomes in ESUS patients with and without malignancy. Methods: In this pre-specified secondary analysis of the Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence (CASPR) retrospective cohort study, active cancers were identified by site investigators and adjudicated as malignant if they were non-squamous or non-basal cell skin cancers. We compared the prevalence of various potential embolic sources (e.g., patent foramen ovale, left ventricular dysfunction, post-stroke atrial fibrillation) among patients with and without malignancy. The risk of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death was evaluated using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, accounting for age, sex, vascular risk factors, competing potential embolic sources, and initial treatment with anticoagulation versus non-anticoagulant (e.g., antiplatelet) regimen. Results: Of the 2201 patients followed over a median of 564 days, 236 (10.7%) were diagnosed with cancer at the time of stroke. Patients with malignancy were older, more frequently hypertensive and did not differ with regards to prevalence of specific infarct patterns or potential cardiac embolic sources. No difference was observed in the composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.71-1.46). Age (adjusted HR per year 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), baseline stroke severity (adjusted HR 1.03 per NIHSS point, 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), prior stroke (adjusted HR 1.68, 95% CI, 1.38-2.05), and multi-territorial infarct pattern (adjusted HR 1.67, 95% CI, 1.33-2.08) were significantly associated with this composite outcome, but anticoagulation was not. There was a nominally lower rate of major bleeding with malignancy (adjusted HR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.19-1.04), a significantly higher rate of death (adjusted HR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.09-2.30), but no significant difference in recurrent ischemic stroke (p=0.31). Conclusions: Patients with malignancy and ESUS had higher mortality but did not differ in recurrent stroke risk or major bleeding when compared to patients without malignancy. Anticoagulation was not independently associated with better outcomes. Further analysis of infarct topology and risk factors may better identify patients for whom anticoagulation may benefit.