Adcock, Amelia

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: The optimal role of advanced cardiac imaging in embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) remains unclear. We hypothesized that advanced imaging would provide greater diagnostic utility than transthoracic echocardiography with bubble study (bTTE). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adults ≥18 years admitted with ESUS/cryptogenic stroke or recurrent embolic stroke with known atrial fibrillation (Aug 2024–Aug 2025). Patients with incomplete workup or known stroke mechanism prior to advanced imaging were excluded. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), cardiac MRI (CMRI), or CT heart morphology (CTH) were considered diagnostic if thrombus, patent foramen ovale (PFO), aortic plaque, or valvular pathology was detected. Outcomes included (1) etiology determination, (2) management change, and (3) diagnostic yield comparison between bTTE and advanced imaging. Results: Of 588 ischemic strokes, 178 met inclusion criteria; 48 were excluded for incomplete workup. Among 130 eligible patients, 65 (50%) underwent advanced imaging (40 TEE, 19 CTH, 6 CMRI). Etiology was identified in 41.5% (95% CI 30–54%), and management was changed in 40.0% (95% CI 29–52%). Compared with bTTE alone (14.6% yield), advanced imaging identified additional etiologies in 42.9% (McNemar p<0.001). Advanced imaging was more frequently performed in younger patients (mean 59.6 vs 69.2 years, p<0.001), while posterior circulation strokes were associated with higher odds of positive findings (OR 5.25, 95% CI 1.01–27.2). Conclusions: Advanced cardiac imaging identified a potential etiology and changed management in ~40% of ESUS/cryptogenic strokes, significantly outperforming bTTE. Although younger patients more often underwent advanced imaging in this cohort, only posterior circulation strokes predicted clinically actionable findings. Routine incorporation of advanced cardiac imaging into ESUS evaluation may improve diagnostic accuracy and treatment decisions.

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 Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is recommended around carotid artery stenting (CAS) to reduce periprocedural stroke risk. Clopidogrel is widely used, but response variability related to pharmacokinetics and CYP2C19 polymorphisms may limit its effectiveness. Ticagrelor is a more potent, direct acting P2Y12 inhibitor, but its comparative effectiveness in CAS remains uncertain. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study in the TriNetX database, identifying adults with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS between January 2016 and August 2025 and received either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. Primary outcomes at 180 days included ischemic stroke, major hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, and all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included inpatient readmission and emergency department (ED) visits. Propensity score matching (1:1), Kaplan–Meier survival, and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used. Results Among 6996 patients, 378 received ticagrelor and 6618 received clopidogrel; aspirin co-use was similar (89.7% vs 91.7%). After matching, 377 patients remained in each cohort. Ischemic stroke (2.7% vs 4.2%; HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.27; P=0.159) and major hemorrhage (2.9% vs 4.8%; HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.30; P=0.197) were numerically lower with ticagrelor. Rates of intracranial hemorrhage were similar (2.7% vs 2.7%; HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.53; P=0.488). Mortality was numerically higher with ticagrelor (3.4% vs 2.7%; HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.97; P=0.263). ED visits were similar (14.3% vs 14.6%; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; P=0.895). Inpatient readmission was numerically lower with ticagrelor (15.9% vs 19.1%; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14; P=0.223). Conclusion Ticagrelor and clopidogrel showed comparable safety and effectiveness following CAS. Future prospective genotype informed trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

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.

Introduction: Telestroke is an effective strategy to increase appropriate stroke treatments among patients in resource-limited environments. Despite the well-documented benefits of telestroke, there is limited literature regarding its utilization. The purposes of this study are: (1) determine the percentage of potential stroke patients who generate a telestroke consult in rural critical access hospitals (CAHs) and (2) validate an electronic medical record (EMR)-derived report as a stroke screen. Methods: This retrospective chart review analyzed patients presenting between September 1, 2020 and February 1, 2021 to three CAHs. Visits with triage complaints suggesting acute ischemic stroke (AIS)/transient ischemic attack (TIA) were pooled for analysis using an EMR-derived report. Patients with confirmed AIS/TIA at discharge over this period were used to validate the EMR tool. Results: The EMR report pooled 252 possible AIS/TIA visits out of 12,685 emergency department visits for analysis. It had a specificity of 98.78% and sensitivity of 58.06%. Of the 252 visits, 12.7% met telestroke criteria and 38.89% received telestroke evaluation. Among these, a definite diagnosis of AIS/TIA was made in 92.86%. Of the remaining population who met criteria but didn't undergo consultation, 61.11% were diagnosed with AIS/TIA at discharge. Conclusion: This study provides novel characterization of stroke presentations and telestroke in rural CAHs. The EMR-derived report is a reasonable tool to concentrate potential AIS/TIA cases for review and resource allocation but is not sensitive enough to detect stroke as a stand-alone tool. The majority (56%) of eligible patients did not undergo telestroke consultation. Future studies are critical to further understand reasons contributing to this.

Background: Although not without its limitations, warfarin has provided essential protection against cardioembolic stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) for over 60 years. Dabigatran, the first oral direct thrombin inhibitor to be approved in the United States is reputed to provide the same or better ischemic stroke protection with reduced risk of intracranial hemorrhage. However, it remains to be seen whether its promise will be borne out in everyday practice. Objective: Track initial dabigatran course in patients at Mayo Clinic Arizona and regional stroke centers since its approval in 2010. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all dabigatran patients between October 2010 and September 2011. Regional practices were obtained from a nationwide survey of cardiologists and neurologists. Results: See table Conclusion: During our period of review, dabigatran was well tolerated. A smaller than expected number of patients discontinued the agent or experienced adverse events, as compared to randomized controlled trial predictions. Furthermore, rates of ischemic events (2/159 or 1.26%) were exceedingly low. Our study had several limitations (retrospective review; random bias, sample bias with low numbers and a more elderly population, shorter median follow up). Many of these shortcomings could be addressed with prospective patient tracking. As with any novel therapy, provider surveys afforded an important window into real world practices and perceptions regarding dabigatran. The majority believed it was a reasonable alternative to warfarin, citing fluctuating INR’s as the most persuasive target population followed by patient preference. Cost was an important limiting factor to prescription and considerable uncertainty remains surrounding reversibility and how to approach acute thrombolysis in recurrent ischemic stroke.