Aguilar, Maria I.

Background: Telemedicine has created access to emergency stroke care for patients in all communities, regardless of geography. We hypothesized that there is no difference in speed of assessment between vascular neurologist (VN) robotic telepresence and standard VN-supervised stroke alert patients in a metropolitan primary stroke center. Materials and Methods: A retrospective stroke alert database was used to identify all robotic telepresence and standardly supervised stroke alert patient assessments at a primary stroke center emergency department from 2009 to 2012. The primary outcome measure was the duration of assessment from stroke alert activation to treatment or downgrade. Results: The sample size was 196 subjects. The mean duration of time from stroke alert activation to initiation of intravenous (IV) thrombolytic treatment or downgrade was 8.6 min longer in the robotic group than in the standard group ( p =0.03). Among the subgroup of acute ischemic stroke patients treated with IV thrombolysis, the mean duration of time from activation to treatment was 18 min longer in the robotic group than in the standard group ( p =0.01). Safety outcomes including thrombolysis protocol violations (0% versus 1%), post-thrombolysis symptomatic intracranial hemorrhagic complications (3% versus 1%), and death during hospitalization (8% versus 6%) were low in the robotic group and not significantly different from that in the standard group. Conclusions: Standard VN-supervised acute stroke team assessments were swifter than those supervised by robotic telepresence. Safety outcomes of robotic telepresence-supervised stroke alerts were excellent, and this modality may be preferred in circumstances when a VN is not immediately available on-site.

Background and Purpose— The American Stroke Association guidelines emphasized the need for further high-quality studies that assess agreement by radiologists and nonradiologists engaged in emergency telestroke assessments and decision-making. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the level of agreement of baseline brain CT scan interpretations of patients with acute stroke presenting to telestroke spoke hospitals between central reading committee neuroradiologists and each of 2 groups, spoke hospital radiologists and hub hospital vascular neurologists (telestrokologists). Methods— The Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera Arizona trial was a prospective, urban single-hub, rural 2-spoke, randomized, blinded, controlled trial of a 2-way, site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine and teleradiology system designed for remote evaluation of adult patients with acute stroke versus telephone consultation to assess eligibility for treatment with intravenous thrombolysis. In the telemedicine arm, the subjects’ CT scans were interpreted by the hub telestrokologist and in the telephone arm by the spoke radiologist. All subjects’ CT scans were subsequently interpreted centrally, independently, and blindly by 2 hub neuroradiologists. The primary CT outcome was determination of a CT-based contraindication to thrombolytic treatment. Kappa statistics and exact agreement rates were used to analyze interobserver agreement. Results— Fifty-four subjects underwent random assignment. The overall agreement for the presence of radiological contraindications to thrombolysis was excellent (0.91) and did not differ substantially between the hub telestrokologist to neuroradiologist and spoke radiologist to neuroradiologist (0.92 and 0.89, respectively). Conclusions— In the context of a telestroke network designed to assess patients with acute stroke syndromes, agreement over the presence or absence of radiological contraindications to thrombolysis was excellent whether the comparisons were between a telestrokologist and neuroradiologist or between spoke radiologist and neuroradiologist. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00623350.

Background and Purpose— ResolutionMD mobile application runs on a Smartphone and affords vascular neurologists access to radiological images of patients with stroke from remote sites in the context of a telemedicine evaluation. Although reliability studies using this technology have been conducted in a controlled environment, this study is the first to incorporate it into a real-world hub and spoke telestroke network. The study objective was to assess the level of agreement of brain CT scan interpretation in a telestroke network between hub vascular neurologists using ResolutionMD, spoke radiologists using a Picture Archiving and Communications System, and independent adjudicators. Methods— Fifty-three patients with stroke at the spoke hospital consented to receive a telemedicine consultation and participate in a registry. Each CT was evaluated by a hub vascular neurologist, a spoke radiologist, and by blinded telestroke adjudicators, and agreement over clinically important radiological features was calculated. Results— Agreement ( κ and 95% CI) between hub vascular neurologists using ResolutionMD and (1) the spoke radiologist; and (2) independent adjudicators, respectively, were: identification of intracranial hemorrhage 1.0 (0.92–1.0), 1.0 (0.93–1.0), neoplasm 1.0 (0.92–1.0), 1.0 (0.93–1.0), any radiological contraindication to thrombolysis 1.0 (0.92–1.0), 0.85 (0.65–1.0), early ischemic changes 0.62 (0.28–0.96), 0.58 (0.30–0.86), and hyperdense artery sign 0.40 (0.01–0.80), 0.44 (0.06–0.81). Conclusions— CT head interpretations of telestroke network patients by vascular neurologists using ResolutionMD on Smartphones were in excellent agreement with interpretations by spoke radiologists using a Picture Archiving and Communications System and those of independent telestroke adjudicators using a desktop viewer. Clinical Trial Registration Information— www.clinicaltrials.gov unique identifier NCT00829361.

Background and Purpose— Telemedicine techniques can be used to address the rural–metropolitan disparity in acute stroke care. The Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera (STRokE DOC) trial reported more accurate decision making for telemedicine consultations compared with telephone-only and that the California-based research network facilitated a high rate of thrombolysis use, improved data collection, low risk of complications, low technical complications, and favorable assessment times. The main objective of the STRokE DOC Arizona TIME (The Initial Mayo Clinic Experience) trial was to determine the feasibility of establishing, de novo, a single-hub, multirural spoke hospital telestroke research network across a large geographical area in Arizona by replicating the STRokE DOC protocol. Methods— Methods included prospective, single-hub, 2-spoke, randomized, blinded, controlled trial of a 2-way, site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine system designed for remote examination of adult patients with acute stroke versus telephone consultation to assess eligibility for treatment with intravenous thrombolysis. The primary outcome measure was whether the decision to give thrombolysis was correct. Secondary outcomes were rate of thrombolytic use, 90-day functional outcomes, incidence of intracerebral hemorrhages, and technical observations. Results— From December 2007 to October 2008, 54 patients were assessed, 27 of whom were randomized to each arm. Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at presentation was 7.3 (SD 6.2) points. No consultations were aborted; however, technical problems (74%) were prevalent in the telemedicine arm. Overall, the correct treatment decision was established in 87% of the consultations. Both modalities, telephone (89% correct) and telemedicine (85% correct), performed well. Intravenous thrombolytic treatment was used in 30% of the telemedicine and telephone consultations. Good functional outcomes at 90 days were not significantly different. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (4% in telemedicine and 11% in telephone) or rates of intracerebral hemorrhage (4% in telemedicine and 0% in telephone). Conclusions— It is feasible to extend the original STRokE DOC trial protocol to a new state and establish an operational single-hub, multispoke rural hospital telestroke research network in Arizona. The trial was not designed to have sufficient power to detect a difference between the 2 consultative modes: telemedicine and telephone-only. Whether by telemedicine or telephone consultative modalities, there were appropriate treatment decisions, high rates of thrombolysis use, improved data collection, low rates of intracerebral hemorrhage, and equally favorable time requirements. The learning curve was steep for the hub and spoke personnel of the new telestroke network, as reflected by frequent technical problems. Overall, the results support the effectiveness of highly organized and structured stroke telemedicine networks for extending expert stroke care into rural remote communities lacking sufficient neurological expertise.