4.7 Article

Reducing Delay of Carotid Endarterectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients A Nationwide Initiative

期刊

STROKE
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 686-690

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.678565

关键词

carotid endarterectomy; carotid stenosis; stroke; time delay

资金

  1. Tryg Foundation (TrygFonden, Denmark)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Guidelines recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within 2 weeks from an ischemic event. However, previous studies have shown that only a minority of patients undergo CEA within this period. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a multidisciplinary nationwide initiative aimed at reducing time to CEA after acute ischemic stroke. Methods-We examined a historic population-based observational cohort based on individual patient-level records from the Danish Stroke Registry and the Danish Vascular Registry. The implementation of early ultrasound examination of the carotids (within 4 days from admission) in medical departments coupled with fast CEA after referral to a department of vascular surgery were monitored and audited systematically from 2008 and onward. Results-A total of 813 acute ischemic stroke patients underwent CEA during 2007-2010. The percentage of patients undergoing CEA within 2 weeks increased from 13% in 2007 to 47% in 2010 (adjusted odds ratio, 5.8 [95% CI, 3.4-10.1]). The overall median time decreased from 31 days to 16 days. The percentage of relevant acute ischemic stroke patients receiving early ultrasound examination of the carotids increased from 41% in 2008 to 72% in 2010. The time from referral to operation at a vascular department was reduced by approximate to 40%. Conclusions-Establishing time limits of 4 days to ultrasound examination of the carotids and of 2 weeks to CEA from onset of stroke followed by a systematic multidisciplinary monitoring and auditing of processes was associated with a substantial increase in the proportion of acute ischemic stroke patients who undergo CEA within 2 weeks in Denmark. (Stroke. 2013;44:686-690.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据