Abstract
Background
Patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO) were usually transferred from a primary stroke center (PSC) to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) for endovascular treatment (drip-and-ship [DS]), while driving the doctor from a CSC to a PSC to perform a procedure is an alternative strategy (drip-and-drive [DD]).
Purpose
To compare the efficacy and prognosis of the two strategies.
Material and Methods
From February 2017 to June 2019, 62 patients with LVO received endovascular treatment via the DS and DD models and were retrospectively analyzed from the stroke alliance based on our CSC. Primary endpoint was door-to-reperfusion (DTR) time. Secondary endpoints included puncture-to-recanalization (PTR) time, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) rates at the end of the procedure, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days.
Results
Forty-one patients received the DS strategy and 21 patients received the DD strategy. The DTR time was significantly longer in the DS group compared to the DD group (315.5 ± 83.8 min vs. 248.6 ± 80.0 min; P < 0.05), and PTR time was shorter (77.2 ± 35.9 min vs. 113.7 ± 69.7 min; P = 0.033) compared with the DD group. Successful recanalization (mTICI 2b/3) was achieved in 89% (36/41) of patients in the DS group and 86% (18/21) in the DD group (P = 1.000). Favorable functional outcomes (mRS 0–2) were observed in 49% (20/41) of patients in the DS group and 71% (15/21) in the DD group at 90 days (P = 0.089).
Conclusion
Compared with the DS strategy, the DD strategy showed more effective and a trend of better clinical outcomes for AIS patients with LVO.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.