CURRENT ISSUE
Volume: 38
Number: 3
Index: June 2010
Clinical Focus:
ONCOLOGY & GERIATRIC CARE;
THROMBOSIS
EDITORIAL CALENDAR
November 2010
Clinical Focus: Cardiovascular Events and Emergency Surgery
  • Pre-and postoperative care of GERD
  • Renal care
  • Sleep disorders
  • Heart disease
  • Caring for the poststroke patient
  • Cardiovascular events and emergency surgery
  • Osteoporosis
  • Osteomyelitis
  • Caring for postoperative patients
  • Cv imaging in heart surgery
  • Valve surgery
  • Perioperative risk
  • Sudden cardiac death in the young
  • Cardiac/cardiopulmonary arrest
  • Post-cardiac arrest syndrome
  • CV consequences of aging
  • Hydrogen sulfide in CVD
  • Arterial stiffness
  • Regionalized care for:
    • Acute cardiovascular events
    • Trauma care
    • Post-cardiac arrest syndrome
  • Pacemaker therapy of postoperative arrhythmias after pediatric cardiac surgery
  • Effect of hospital volume and teaching status on outcomes of acute liver failure
  • Caring for women undergoing cardiac ablation
Submission deadline: September 15
Fast-Track deadline: October 05
Fast-Track
About
Fast-Track peer review is available for those papers requiring immediate review (for an additional fee). Complete peer review is finalized in 1-2 weeks and comments are provided to the author within 72 hours of their receipt by the editorial office. Authors are asked to submit a revised manuscript within 10-12 days. Accepted manuscripts are processed within 2-3 weeks, published online within 3 business days of final author approval, and in print in the next available issue.

View More
Submissions
Submit your FAST-TRACK manuscript online today. It's fast, it's easy! Just follow the detailed instructions, fill in all the required fields, and upload your manuscript.
Get started NOW!
Contacts
Libraries:
sitelicenses@hosppract.com

Reprints:
reprints@hosppract.com

Subscriptions:
subscriptions@hosppract.com

Supplements:
supplements@hosppract.com

Document Delivery Services
1966-2010:

documentdelivery@hosppract.com

Editorial:
editor-in-chief@hosppract.com editorial@hosppract.com

Website:
support@hosppract.com

Managing Director:
John Elduff
Phone: 610-889-3732
Fax: 1-866-297-3168
j.elduff@hosppract.com

General Information
Phone: 610-889-3730
Fax: 1-866-297-3168
1235 Westlakes Drive
Suite 320
Berwyn, PA 19312
doi: 10.3810/hp.2009.12.252
Hospital Practice: Volume 37: No.1
Acute Ischemic Stroke and Thrombolysis Location:
Comparing Telemedicine and Stroke Center Treatment Outcomes
Catalina C. Ionita, MD; Jitendra Sharma, MD; David M. Janicke, MD, PhD; Elad I. Levy, MD; Adnan H. Siddiqui, MD, PhD; Sachin Agrawal, MD; John G. Baker, PhD, ABPP-CN; Eliz Agopian, MD, MPH; Karen Olson, BSN, RN; And L. Nelson Hopkins, MD
Abstract: Background Telemedicine has been increasingly used as an option for acute ischemic stroke treatment at hospitals where neurological expertise is not available. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of stroke patients treated with systemic thrombolysis at our academic hub regional stroke centers (hub) versus our spoke hospital telemedicine locations (spoke) Methods Data were retrospectively reviewed for consecutive patients admitted for stroke treatment with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator at our hub (128 patients) and at the spoke centers (27 patients) over a 2-year period. Mortality was selected as a primary outcome measure, and post-thrombolysis intracranial hemorrhage (PT-ICH) rate, hospital length of stay (LOS), and discharge modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score were selected as secondary outcome measures. Logistic regression models were used to determine the effect of thrombolysis treatment site on stroke outcomes. Results Demographic and clinical variables of patients treated at the hub versus spoke sites were similar, except for a lower initial platelet count and a shorter time from ictus onset to needle in the spoke group. With covariates, the treatment site (hub vs spoke) did not have a significant impact on mortality (10.9% vs 11.1%; P = 0.34), nor on PT-ICH (20.3% vs 33.3%; P < 0.35). Site did not reach significance in affecting discharge outcome: 52.3% versus 51.9% of patients had good outcomes (mRS 0–3) and 47.7% versus 48.1% patients had poor outcomes (mRS, 4–6; P = 0.16). Length of stay was also not significantly affected by site: 8.8 days versus 10.7 days (P < 0.23). Conclusion The hub-and-spoke telemedicine model for acute ischemic stroke treatment seems to carry similar efficacy and safety outcomes at the regional academic hub and spoke centers.

Keywords: stroke; thrombolysis; telemedicine; hub; spoke; REACH system

(read)

Back to the table of contents for the December 2009 issue