• J Latour-Pérez and P Galdos Anuncibay.
• Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Alicante, España. jlatour@coma.es
• Med Intensiva. 2012 Jun 1;36(5):324-8.

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical impact of on-site thrombolysis versus referral to another hospital in patients with ischemic stroke attended in a hospital lacking a stroke unit.DesignExpected value decision analysis and Monte Carlo simulation.Patients And SettingDecision analysis based on a cohort study (SIT-MOST) and a meta-analysis of randomized trials of thrombolysis versus placebo in patients with acute ischemic stroke.InterventionsOn-site thrombolysis (in hospitals lacking a stroke unit) versus delayed thrombolysis in a reference hospital.Main OutcomesNeurological outcome (modified Rankin scale) three months after admission according to the delay in the administration of thrombolysis.ResultsAt baseline (initial delay of 135 min, travel time 60 minutes), on-site treatment was more effective than referral to another hospital (number of patients with favorable neurological outcome 45.3% versus 41.3%). In patients seen within 45 minutes of the onset of symptoms, for every 10 patients transferred there was an additional case with an unfavorable neurological outcome that could have been avoided with on-site thrombolysis. In the Monte Carlo analysis, biased against on-site treatment by a reduction in effectiveness of 30%, on-site treatment was superior to patient referral in 77.2% of the cases.ConclusionsThe available evidence does not support the recommendations of the national stroke strategy or some regional plans that discourage the administration of thrombolysis in hospitals without stroke units.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier España, S.L. and SEMICYUC. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…